Bartell, R v

Bartell, R v

The circumstances of the offence and the offender were not exceptional; the judge was clearly wrong to depart from the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. The minimum sentence is intended as a deterrent and only truly exceptional circumstances justify departure.

Parties
Applicant: Solicitor General; Respondent: Robert Bartell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentences quashed and substituted.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Firearms Offences, Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Exceptional Circumstances
Criminal Law Sentencing Firearms Offences Mandatory Minimum Sentences Exceptional Circumstances

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solicitor General

Applicant

Robert Bartell

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances justified departure from the mandatory minimum sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The circumstances of the offence and the offender were not exceptional; the judge was clearly wrong to depart from the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. The minimum sentence is intended as a deterrent and only truly exceptional circumstances justify departure.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences quashed and substituted.

Orders

  • Sentences on counts 1 to 4 and 6 quashed and substituted with 5 years' imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently.
  • Other sentences remain unaffected.