Steven, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 154 (11 February 2025)

Steven, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 154 (11 February 2025)

The sentencing judge was entitled to find the applicant had a central role in the conspiracy and to assess the lack of intention to kill as only a limited mitigating factor due to the prolonged and severe suffering inflicted on the victim. There was no double counting, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 154
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Applicant: Reece Joseph Steven
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
Legal Topics
Murder, Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, Sentencing, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors, Appeal Against Sentence
Criminal Law Murder Conspiracy to Commit Robbery Sentencing Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Appeal Against Sentence

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Reece Joseph Steven

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge failed to sufficiently consider the applicant's lesser role compared to the mastermind of the conspiracy
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to properly reflect the lack of intention to kill when setting the minimum term for murder
  3. 3 Whether the judge engaged in impermissible double counting of aggravating and mitigating factors

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to find the applicant had a central role in the conspiracy and to assess the lack of intention to kill as only a limited mitigating factor due to the prolonged and severe suffering inflicted on the victim. There was no double counting, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal against sentence refused