Jordan, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 1147 (14 June 2013)

Jordan, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 1147 (14 June 2013)

Given the extreme seriousness of the offences, the appellants' maturity, and the absence of significant mitigating factors beyond age, the sentencing judge was entitled to impose sentences at the upper end of the guideline range without further reduction for age; the sentences were not manifestly excessive.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Crim 1147
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Sheldon Jordan; Appellant: Reece Barnes; Appellant: Yousef Alquebeiai
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Wounding With Intent, Joint Enterprise, Youth Sentencing, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
Criminal Law Sentencing Wounding With Intent Joint Enterprise Youth Sentencing Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Sheldon Jordan

Appellant

Reece Barnes

Appellant

Yousef Alquebeiai

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive given the appellants' ages and roles
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying adult guidelines and in assessing maturity
  3. 3 Whether sufficient account was taken of mitigating factors such as age, lack of previous convictions, and first custodial sentence

Ratio Decidendi

Given the extreme seriousness of the offences, the appellants' maturity, and the absence of significant mitigating factors beyond age, the sentencing judge was entitled to impose sentences at the upper end of the guideline range without further reduction for age; the sentences were not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Sentences of 15 years' detention for each appellant upheld