Ardic & Ors v R.

Ardic & Ors v R.

The sentences for Ardic and Tekagac were manifestly excessive given the extent of the injuries and the circumstances; determinate sentences provided sufficient protection. Onel’s offending and risk justified an extended sentence, but the custodial term was reduced to reflect the actual level of harm.

Parties
Appellant: Onur Ardic; Appellant: Mehmet Tekagac; Appellant: Hussain Onel; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeals allowed in part
Legal Topics
Violent Disorder, Application of Corrosive Fluid With Intent, Robbery, Sentencing, Dangerousness, Extended 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Onur Ardic

Appellant

Mehmet Tekagac

Appellant

Hussain Onel

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the judge was correct to find the appellants dangerous and impose extended sentences
  3. 3 Whether factual findings by the sentencing judge were accurate

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences for Ardic and Tekagac were manifestly excessive given the extent of the injuries and the circumstances; determinate sentences provided sufficient protection. Onel’s offending and risk justified an extended sentence, but the custodial term was reduced to reflect the actual level of harm.

Court Disposition

appeals allowed in part

Orders

  • Onel: extended sentence of 20 years quashed and substituted with 19 years (16 years custodial, 3 years extended licence)
  • Tekagac: extended sentence of 17½ years quashed and substituted with 14 years determinate imprisonment