Bauld, R v

Bauld, R v

Insufficient allowance was made for the principle of totality, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The sentences for counts 1, 2, and 3 were quashed and substituted with 12 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently with each other and with existing sentences.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Keaton Bauld
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Burglary, Theft, Sentencing, Totality Principle
Criminal Law Burglary Theft Sentencing Totality Principle

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Keaton Bauld

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive by reference to the Sentencing Council Guideline and the principle of totality.

Ratio Decidendi

Insufficient allowance was made for the principle of totality, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The sentences for counts 1, 2, and 3 were quashed and substituted with 12 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently with each other and with existing sentences.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Sentences for counts 1, 2, and 3 quashed
  • Substituted with 12 months' imprisonment on each count to run concurrently with each other and with existing sentences