Thomas, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 543 (05 May 2023)

Thomas, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 543 (05 May 2023)

The judge erred by doubling the mandatory minimum term solely due to previous convictions without proper justification; a four-year sentence, reflecting aggravation but not excessive uplift, is appropriate under the guideline and statutory framework.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 543
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Appellant: Murray Thomas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed; sentence reduced
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Burglary, Fraud, Aggravating Factors, Mandatory Minimum Sentences
Criminal Law Sentencing Burglary Fraud Aggravating Factors Mandatory Minimum Sentences

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Murray Thomas

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of six years' imprisonment for burglary was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Proper application of Sentencing Council Guideline and mandatory minimum term for third strike burglary

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by doubling the mandatory minimum term solely due to previous convictions without proper justification; a four-year sentence, reflecting aggravation but not excessive uplift, is appropriate under the guideline and statutory framework.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; sentence reduced

Orders

  • Six-year sentence quashed and replaced with four years' imprisonment for burglary
  • All other elements of the sentence remain unaltered