Aldrich, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1415 (21 October 2025)
The sentencing judge was entitled, on the evidence available, to assess the appellant's culpability as medium rather than low, and to impose a sentence outside the guideline range due to the extreme harm caused. The judge's reference to the appellant's lies as aggravating was not material to the sentence imposed. The sentence of 28 months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
- Citation
- [2025] EWCA Crim 1415
- Parties
- Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Perry Aldrich
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 21 October 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Arson, Sentencing, Mental Disorder, Culpability, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rex
Respondent
Perry Aldrich
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the appellant's culpability as medium rather than low due to mental disorder or learning disability
- 2 Whether the judge was wrong to treat the appellant's lies to police as an aggravating factor
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge was entitled, on the evidence available, to assess the appellant's culpability as medium rather than low, and to impose a sentence outside the guideline range due to the extreme harm caused. The judge's reference to the appellant's lies as aggravating was not material to the sentence imposed. The sentence of 28 months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal against sentence dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment