Mampuya, R v

Mampuya, R v

The sentences imposed, particularly the eighteen years' imprisonment on count 1, were not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offences, the use of knives, repeated assaults, and aggravating circumstances. The judge was entitled to treat count 1 as the lead offence and weight sentencing accordingly. Although counts 2 and 3 may have been category 2 offences, the concurrent sentences did not render the overall sentence excessive.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Junior Mampuya; Appellant: Apio Gomes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Wounding With Intent, Joint Enterprise, Use of Knives, Grievous Bodily 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Junior Mampuya

Appellant

Apio Gomes

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed for wounding with intent were manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Proper categorisation of harm and culpability for counts 2 and 3 under Sentencing Council guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed, particularly the eighteen years' imprisonment on count 1, were not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offences, the use of knives, repeated assaults, and aggravating circumstances. The judge was entitled to treat count 1 as the lead offence and weight sentencing accordingly. Although counts 2 and 3 may have been category 2 offences, the concurrent sentences did not render the overall sentence excessive.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals against sentence dismissed.