Attorney General v Pollard & Anor

The sentences imposed were unduly lenient as the offences fell within Category 1A of the Sentencing Guideline due to significant age disparity and aggravating factors; immediate custodial sentences were required and mitigation applicable to one offender did not justify similar reduction for the other.

Parties: Applicant: Her Majesty’s Attorney-General; First Respondent: Lee Robert James Pollard; Second Respondent: Marc Anthony Allen
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 13 March 2018
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome: Appeal allowed; sentences quashed and substituted
Legal Topics: Sentencing, Sexual Activity With a Child, Unduly Lenient Sentences, Mitigation, Sentencing Guidelines

Criminal Law Sexual Offences Sentencing Sexual Activity With a Child Unduly Lenient Sentences Mitigation Sentencing Guidelines

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Her Majesty’s Attorney-General

Applicant

Lee Robert James Pollard

First Respondent

Marc Anthony Allen

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

1 Whether the sentences imposed were unduly lenient
2 Proper categorisation under sentencing guidelines
3 Appropriate consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences quashed and substituted

Orders

Sentences of 15 months imprisonment, suspended for two years, quashed for both offenders
Immediate custodial sentence of 2 years 9 months imposed on Lee Pollard