Bartell, R v [2020] EWCA Crim 625 (01 May 2020)
The circumstances of the offence and the offender were not exceptional; the judge was clearly wrong to find exceptional circumstances. The statutory minimum sentence must be imposed to serve the deterrent purpose intended by Parliament. The original sentence was unduly lenient and is substituted with the statutory minimum.
- Citation
- [2020] EWCA Crim 625
- Parties
- Applicant: Solicitor General; Offender/respondent: Robert Bartell
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 01 May 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (reference by Attorney General) / Appeal Against Sentence Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; original sentences quashed on relevant counts and substituted with statutory minimum sentences.
- Legal Topics
- Firearms Offences, Sentencing, Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Exceptional Circumstances, Unduly Lenient Sentences
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Solicitor General
Applicant
Robert Bartell
Offender/respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (reference by Attorney General) / Appeal Against Sentence Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge was correct to find exceptional circumstances justifying a sentence below the statutory minimum for firearms offences
- 2 Whether the original sentence was unduly lenient
Ratio Decidendi
The circumstances of the offence and the offender were not exceptional; the judge was clearly wrong to find exceptional circumstances. The statutory minimum sentence must be imposed to serve the deterrent purpose intended by Parliament. The original sentence was unduly lenient and is substituted with the statutory minimum.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; original sentences quashed on relevant counts and substituted with statutory minimum sentences.
Orders
- Sentences on counts 1 to 4 and 6 quashed and substituted with 5 years' imprisonment on each, to be served concurrently.
- Other sentences remain unaffected.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment