R v Michael Forbes

R v Michael Forbes

The sentence for going equipped for theft was based on an incorrect assessment of high culpability for domestic burglary, which was not supported by the facts or plea; the appropriate sentence for that count was reduced. The sentences for assault and bladed article offences were within the proper exercise of judicial discretion and the totality principle was properly applied.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rex; Appellant: Michael Forbes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Assault on Emergency Worker, Going Equipped for Theft, Possession of Bladed Article, Possession of Drugs, Totality Principle
Criminal Law Sentencing Assault on Emergency Worker Going Equipped for Theft Possession of Bladed Article Possession of Drugs 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

Michael Forbes

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence for assault on an emergency worker was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing guidelines for going equipped for theft and bladed article offences were properly applied
  3. 3 Whether the principle of totality was properly observed

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence for going equipped for theft was based on an incorrect assessment of high culpability for domestic burglary, which was not supported by the facts or plea; the appropriate sentence for that count was reduced. The sentences for assault and bladed article offences were within the proper exercise of judicial discretion and the totality principle was properly applied.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentence of nine months' imprisonment on count 3 (going equipped for theft) quashed and substituted with five months concurrent
  • Other sentences and total sentence of 24 months' imprisonment upheld