R v Sean O'Sullivan

R v Sean O'Sullivan

The sentence of eight years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness, planning, and persistence of the offending, the appellant's extensive criminal history, and the need for the sentence to reflect all the offending. The disparity with the co-defendant's sentence was justified by differences...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Sean O'Sullivan; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Burgle, Burglary, Dangerous Driving, Sentencing, Disparity in Sentencing, Driving Disqualification
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Burgle Burglary Dangerous Driving Sentencing Disparity in Sentencing Driving Disqualification

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sean O'Sullivan

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether there was unfair disparity between the appellant's sentence and that of his co-defendant Farrell
  3. 3 Whether sufficient regard was given to personal mitigation and the principle of totality

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence of eight years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness, planning, and persistence of the offending, the appellant's extensive criminal history, and the need for the sentence to reflect all the offending. The disparity with the co-defendant's sentence was justified by differences in offending, credit for pleas, and previous convictions. The judge properly applied the principles of totality and personal mitigation.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The sentence of eight years' imprisonment is upheld.
  • 356 days spent on qualifying curfew to count towards sentence.