Mangham, R. v

Mangham, R. v

The balance of aggravating and mitigating factors warranted a reduction of sentence to 4 months' imprisonment, and the serious crime prevention order was disproportionate given the applicant's circumstances and low risk of re-offending.

Parties
Applicant: Glen Steven Mangham; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Computer Misuse, Sentencing, Serious Crime Prevention Orders
Criminal Law Cybercrime Computer Misuse Sentencing Serious Crime Prevention Orders

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glen Steven Mangham

Applicant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the serious crime prevention order was proportionate and justified

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of aggravating and mitigating factors warranted a reduction of sentence to 4 months' imprisonment, and the serious crime prevention order was disproportionate given the applicant's circumstances and low risk of re-offending.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Sentence reduced to 4 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently
  • Serious crime prevention order quashed