Brooks, R v

The sentence imposed on Count 3 was excessive and not proportionate to the offence aggravated by previous convictions; the notional sentence after trial should have been 30 months, discounted for plea to 22 months, concurrent to other counts.

Parties: Appellant: Daniel Brooks; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 14 July 2017
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome: sentence on Count 3 quashed and substituted with 22 months' imprisonment concurrent; total sentence reduced to 22 months; appeal allowed to that extent
Legal Topics: Sentencing, Theft, Shoplifting, Sentencing Guidelines, Persistent Offending, Disparity in Sentencing

Criminal Law Sentencing Theft Shoplifting Sentencing Guidelines Persistent Offending Disparity in Sentencing

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7

Parties

Daniel Brooks

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
2 Whether the sentencing judge failed to supply adequate justification for departure from the Definitive Guideline
3 Whether there was unfair disparity between sentences imposed on co-defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

sentence on Count 3 quashed and substituted with 22 months' imprisonment concurrent; total sentence reduced to 22 months; appeal allowed to that extent

Orders

Sentence on Count 3 quashed
Substituted sentence of 22 months' imprisonment concurrent