Hines, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 757 (25 June 2024)

Hines, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 757 (25 June 2024)

The judge was entitled to assess harm and culpability as category 2A, taking into account the victim's vulnerability, psychological harm, and aggravating features. The reduction for age, maturity, and delay was appropriate. The sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 757
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Jemel Soloman Hines
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Sentencing, Mitigating Factors, Youth Offenders, Psychological Harm
Criminal Law Rape Sentencing Mitigating Factors Youth Offenders Psychological Harm

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Jemel Soloman Hines

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the starting point for sentencing too high?
  2. 2 Did the judge give sufficient weight to mitigating factors such as youth, immaturity, delay, PTSD, and rehabilitation efforts?
  3. 3 Was the sentence manifestly excessive or wrong in principle?

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to assess harm and culpability as category 2A, taking into account the victim's vulnerability, psychological harm, and aggravating features. The reduction for age, maturity, and delay was appropriate. The sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • extension of time granted for leave to appeal application
  • renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused