Smythe & Anor, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 90 (25 January 2019)

Smythe & Anor, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 90 (25 January 2019)

The sentences were wrong in principle because they were imposed by reference to guidelines not in force at the time and were manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offending, the maximum sentence, and the mitigating factors. The appropriate sentence was 6 years' imprisonment for each appellant.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Crim 90
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Marina Smythe; Appellant: Michael Osbourne
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Causing or Allowing Serious Physical Harm to a Child, Sentencing Guidelines, Manifestly Excessive Sentence, Culpability, Mitigation
Criminal Law Child Protection Causing or Allowing Serious Physical Harm to a Child Sentencing Guidelines Manifestly Excessive Sentence Culpability Mitigation

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Marina Smythe

Appellant

Michael Osbourne

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences of 8 years' imprisonment for causing or allowing serious physical harm to a child were manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred by applying draft sentencing guidelines not in force at the date of sentence
  3. 3 Whether there should have been a distinction in culpability between the two appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences were wrong in principle because they were imposed by reference to guidelines not in force at the time and were manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offending, the maximum sentence, and the mitigating factors. The appropriate sentence was 6 years' imprisonment for each appellant.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Sentences of 8 years' imprisonment quashed for both appellants
  • Substitute sentences of 6 years' imprisonment for each appellant