R v Richard Thomas Watkins & Anor

R v Richard Thomas Watkins & Anor

The sentences imposed were within the appropriate guideline ranges, properly reflected the applicants' roles, aggravating features, and previous convictions, and the judge correctly applied the principle of totality. There was no double-counting of aggravating factors, and the categorisation of culpability as category A was justified by the evidence. The sentences were not manifestly excessive.

Parties
Applicant: Richard Thomas Watkins; Applicant: Christopher German; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused
Legal Topics
Firearms Offences, Sentencing, Conspiracy, Appeals
Criminal Law Firearms Offences Sentencing Conspiracy Appeals

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

Parties

Richard Thomas Watkins

Applicant

Christopher German

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed on Richard Thomas Watkins and Christopher German were manifestly excessive or outside the applicable sentencing guidelines
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the applicants' culpability and harm under the Sentencing Council guideline
  3. 3 Whether there was double-counting of aggravating factors

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed were within the appropriate guideline ranges, properly reflected the applicants' roles, aggravating features, and previous convictions, and the judge correctly applied the principle of totality. There was no double-counting of aggravating factors, and the categorisation of culpability as category A was justified by the evidence. The sentences were not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused