Connor William Chapman v Rex
The minimum term of 48 years was severe but not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offending, including the murder, two attempted murders, multiple victims, use of a sub-machine gun, gang context, and premeditation. The judge was entitled to find significant aggravating factors and to give limited weight to the applicant's age. The further uplift to reflect associated offences was justified and did not involve impermissible double counting.
- Parties
- Appellant: Connor William Chapman; Respondent: Rex
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 27 March 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Attempted Murder, Sentencing, Firearms Offences, Gang Related Crime
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Connor William Chapman
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the minimum term of 48 years imposed for murder and associated offences was manifestly excessive
- 2 Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly assess overall seriousness and the applicant's age
Ratio Decidendi
The minimum term of 48 years was severe but not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offending, including the murder, two attempted murders, multiple victims, use of a sub-machine gun, gang context, and premeditation. The judge was entitled to find significant aggravating factors and to give limited weight to the applicant's age. The further uplift to reflect associated offences was justified and did not involve impermissible double counting.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted
- Appeal against sentence dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment