Webbe & Ors, R. v [2001] EWCA Crim 1217 (02 May 2001)

Webbe & Ors, R. v [2001] EWCA Crim 1217 (02 May 2001)

Sentencing guidelines for handling offences are appropriate and should be adopted to promote consistency, but must not be rigid or prescriptive due to the wide range of circumstances. Sentences must reflect aggravating and mitigating factors, including proximity to the primary offence, value, sophistication, profit, and personal mitigation. In the individual appeals, sentences were reduced where manifestly excessive, but upheld where appropriate given the facts and aggravating features.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Crim 1217
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Bernard Webbe; Appellant: William Andrew Mitchell; Appellant: Andrew Davis; Appellant: Robert John Moore; Applicant: Paul White; Amicus: Attorney-General (amicus)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals and Application Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeals of Webbe, Mitchell, and Davis allowed in part; sentences reduced. Moore's appeal dismissed. White's application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Sentencing Guidelines, Handling Stolen Goods, Theft Act 1968 S.22, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors, Sentencing Advisory Panel, Appeals Against Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Guidelines Handling Stolen Goods Theft Act 1968 S.22 Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Sentencing Advisory Panel Appeals Against Sentence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Bernard Webbe

Appellant

William Andrew Mitchell

Appellant

Andrew Davis

Appellant

Robert John Moore

Appellant

Paul White

Applicant

Attorney-General (amicus)

Amicus

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals and Application Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentencing guidelines should be framed for handling offences under s.22 Theft Act 1968
  2. 2 Appropriate sentencing ranges and factors for handling offences
  3. 3 Whether sentences imposed in the individual cases were manifestly excessive or appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Sentencing guidelines for handling offences are appropriate and should be adopted to promote consistency, but must not be rigid or prescriptive due to the wide range of circumstances. Sentences must reflect aggravating and mitigating factors, including proximity to the primary offence, value, sophistication, profit, and personal mitigation. In the individual appeals, sentences were reduced where manifestly excessive, but upheld where appropriate given the facts and aggravating features.

Court Disposition

Appeals of Webbe, Mitchell, and Davis allowed in part; sentences reduced. Moore's appeal dismissed. White's application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Webbe: sentence reduced from 15 months to 4 months' imprisonment concurrently on each count
  • Mitchell and Davis: sentences reduced from 18 months to 12 months' detention in a young offender institution