Gimbert, R v [2017] EWCA Crim 2508 (13 December 2017)

Gimbert, R v [2017] EWCA Crim 2508 (13 December 2017)

Although the individual sentences were appropriate, the Recorder erred by not increasing the sentence on the most serious count to reflect the overall seriousness of the offending. However, given the mitigating circumstances, the sentence was not unduly lenient in the particular circumstances and no interference was warranted.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Crim 2508
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Defendant: John David Gimbert
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (attorney General's Reference) / Application for Review of Sentence Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
application dismissed; sentence not increased
Legal Topics
Unduly Lenient Sentence, Abuse of Trust, Theft, Conspiracy to Defraud, Sentencing Guidelines, Totality Principle
Criminal Law Unduly Lenient Sentence Abuse of Trust Theft Conspiracy to Defraud Sentencing Guidelines Totality Principle

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

John David Gimbert

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (attorney General's Reference) / Application for Review of Sentence Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on John David Gimbert was unduly lenient under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder failed to properly apply the totality principle in sentencing for multiple offences involving high culpability and a vulnerable victim

Ratio Decidendi

Although the individual sentences were appropriate, the Recorder erred by not increasing the sentence on the most serious count to reflect the overall seriousness of the offending. However, given the mitigating circumstances, the sentence was not unduly lenient in the particular circumstances and no interference was warranted.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; sentence not increased