Smith, R v [2019] EWCA Crim 1469 (24 July 2019)

Smith, R v [2019] EWCA Crim 1469 (24 July 2019)

The original sentences of three years' imprisonment were excessive given the specific facts: genuine parental concern, short duration, remorse, improved family relationships, and the victim's forgiveness. The appellants had a legitimate expectation of some credit for guilty plea due to the judge's remarks....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Crim 1469
Parties
Appellant: Leanda Smith; Appellant: Edward Lesley Smith; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed; sentences quashed and replaced
Legal Topics
Kidnap, Sentencing, Suspended Sentence, Mitigation, Victim Impact, Credit for Guilty Plea
Criminal Law Kidnap Sentencing Suspended Sentence Mitigation Victim Impact Credit for Guilty Plea

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

Parties

Leanda Smith

Appellant

Edward Lesley Smith

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were the sentences of three years' imprisonment for kidnap manifestly excessive?
  2. 2 Should the sentences have been suspended?
  3. 3 Was credit for guilty plea properly considered?

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentences of three years' imprisonment were excessive given the specific facts: genuine parental concern, short duration, remorse, improved family relationships, and the victim's forgiveness. The appellants had a legitimate expectation of some credit for guilty plea due to the judge's remarks. Appropriate punishment could be achieved by suspended sentences.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; sentences quashed and replaced

Orders

  • Sentences of three years' imprisonment quashed
  • Substituted sentence of 17 months' imprisonment suspended for two years for each appellant