Bath, R v

Bath, R v

The court held that the sentencing judge erred in imposing 'no separate penalty' on counts 3 and 5; the correct procedure was to leave the pleas to those counts to lie on the file without imposing any sentence.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Sam Bath
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Unlawful Wounding, Extended Sentence, Court Record Correction
Criminal Law Sentencing Unlawful Wounding Extended Sentence Court Record Correction

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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Sam Bath

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing 'no separate penalty' on counts 3 and 5 instead of leaving the pleas to lie on the file

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the sentencing judge erred in imposing 'no separate penalty' on counts 3 and 5; the correct procedure was to leave the pleas to those counts to lie on the file without imposing any sentence.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Court record to be amended to remove 'no separate penalty' on counts 3 and 5; pleas on those counts to lie on the file
  • Sentence otherwise undisturbed