Roberts & Ors, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1397 (01 November 2024)

Roberts & Ors, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1397 (01 November 2024)

The sentencing judge's categorisation of the roles of David and Max Roberts as significant rather than leading, and of George Barnes as lesser rather than significant, was not plainly wrong. The judge's evaluative decisions were supported by the evidence and within the discretion afforded by the Sentencing Council...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 1397
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Defendant: David Roberts; Defendant: Max Anthony Roberts; Defendant: George Barnes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Attorney General's Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
Reference refused for David and Max Roberts; leave to refer granted but no interference for George Barnes.
Legal Topics
Unduly Lenient Sentence, Conspiracy to Supply Drugs, Sentencing Guidelines, Culpability Categorisation
Criminal Law Unduly Lenient Sentence Conspiracy to Supply Drugs Sentencing Guidelines Culpability Categorisation

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

David Roberts

Defendant

Max Anthony Roberts

Defendant

George Barnes

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Attorney General's Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge misapplied the Sentencing Council guidelines in categorising the roles of the offenders and imposed unduly lenient sentences.
  2. 2 Whether the sentences for conspiracy to supply cocaine and related offences should be increased on reference by the Attorney General.

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge's categorisation of the roles of David and Max Roberts as significant rather than leading, and of George Barnes as lesser rather than significant, was not plainly wrong. The judge's evaluative decisions were supported by the evidence and within the discretion afforded by the Sentencing Council guideline. The sentences imposed were not unduly lenient and do not warrant appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Reference refused for David and Max Roberts; leave to refer granted but no interference for George Barnes.

Orders

  • Leave to refer refused for David Roberts and Max Roberts; sentences of 9 years' imprisonment stand.
  • Leave to refer granted for George Barnes but no interference; suspended sentence of 2 years with requirements stands.