R v Z
The sentencing judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences to reflect the total criminality and deterrence. The judge gave a substantial discount for information provided, but maximum benefit was not warranted as the information did not lead to apprehension of serious criminals. Subsequent information provided after sentencing does not warrant further reduction as it does not fall within exceptional circumstances.
- Parties
- Appellant: Z; Respondent: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 26 June 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Conspiracy to Supply Drugs, Assistance to Authorities, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Discount for Cooperation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Z
Appellant
Regina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the consecutive sentence for conspiracy to supply cannabis resin was wrong in principle
- 2 Whether the total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
- 3 Whether further information supplied after sentencing should reduce the sentence
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences to reflect the total criminality and deterrence. The judge gave a substantial discount for information provided, but maximum benefit was not warranted as the information did not lead to apprehension of serious criminals. Subsequent information provided after sentencing does not warrant further reduction as it does not fall within exceptional circumstances.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Sentence of 18 years imprisonment upheld
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