Thorpe, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1758 (16 December 2025)

Thorpe, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1758 (16 December 2025)

The sentences imposed, including the IPP in 2008 and the sentences for the Kingston offences in 2024, were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The sentencing judges applied the correct legal tests, considered all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicant's diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome did not undermine the assessment of dangerousness or justify a lesser sentence. There was no unjustified disparity between the applicant's sentence and that of the co-defendant. No arguable grounds for appeal were established.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1758
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Craig Thorpe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp), Sentencing, Appeals, Conspiracy to Steal, Fraud, Dangerousness, Mitigation, Aggravating Factors, Disparity of Sentence
Criminal Law Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp) Sentencing Appeals Conspiracy to Steal Fraud Dangerousness Mitigation +2 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Craig Thorpe

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) imposed in 2008 was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle
  2. 2 Whether the sentences imposed for the Kingston offences in 2024 were manifestly excessive
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in assessing the applicant's role and culpability in the Kingston offences

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed, including the IPP in 2008 and the sentences for the Kingston offences in 2024, were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The sentencing judges applied the correct legal tests, considered all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicant's diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome did not undermine the assessment of dangerousness or justify a lesser sentence. There was no unjustified disparity between the applicant's sentence and that of the co-defendant. No arguable grounds for appeal were established.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal against the 2008 IPP sentence refused.
  • Leave to appeal against the 2008 IPP sentence refused.