R v Steven Carvell

R v Steven Carvell

The judge was correct to impose a consecutive sentence with only a slight discount for totality, as further reduction or overlap would improperly dilute the effect of the mandatory minimum term for the domestic burglary offence. The total sentence was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's offending history and aggravating features.

Parties
Applicant: Steven Carvell; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal, Full Court Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; extension of time and leave refused.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Burglary, Totality, Mandatory Minimum Term, Consecutive Sentences
Criminal Law Sentencing Burglary Totality Mandatory Minimum Term Consecutive Sentences

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Carvell

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal, Full Court Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consecutive sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether sufficient regard was given to delay and totality in sentencing
  3. 3 Whether the effect of the mandatory minimum term was improperly diluted

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was correct to impose a consecutive sentence with only a slight discount for totality, as further reduction or overlap would improperly dilute the effect of the mandatory minimum term for the domestic burglary offence. The total sentence was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's offending history and aggravating features.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; extension of time and leave refused.

Orders

  • Refusal of extension of time
  • Refusal of leave to appeal