Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal corrected a sentencing error by certifying 61 days’ qualifying-curfew credit and adjusting the activated suspended sentence to avoid double counting.
Calver-Smith, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 560 (21 April 2026)
The Court of Appeal held that the Crown Court could revoke an extant magistrates’ court community order when activating a suspended sentence, and dismissed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that paragraph 25(1)(b)(ii) of Schedule 10 allowed revocation of the community order when the suspended sentence was activated, and dismissed the appeal.
Westlake, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 471 (01 April 2026)
Court of Appeal increased Jack Westlake’s sentence, holding that the original nine-year term was unduly lenient given repeated sexual offending against five young victims.
The Court of Appeal substituted a community order for a suspended sentence after a careless driving conviction causing serious injury, holding custody was not unavoidable.
The original sentence was not unduly lenient given the offender's age, immaturity, and the sentencing practices at the time of the offences, but the community order must include a punitive element, satisfied by adding 300 hours of unpaid work.
Source excerpt
The sentence imposed was unduly lenient as the Recorder erred in reducing the sentence below the guideline range for mitigation, failed to properly reflect the seriousness of the offences and the affray, and wrongly reduced the sentence by reference to qualifying curfew to enable suspension. The appropriate sentence was three years and six months' imprisonment for wounding with intent and two years for affray, to run concurrently, not suspended.
Source excerpt
Latty, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 538 (10 March 2026)
The Court of Appeal held that a magistrates’ court committal for sentence was unlawful because the burglary was indictable only under the three-strikes rule.
The sentencing judge erred by failing to consider and explain why alternatives to imprisonment for public protection would not suffice. Given the applicant's age, lack of previous violent convictions, and prospects for rehabilitation, an extended sentence would have adequately protected the public. The original sentence was outside the reasonable range and is quashed in favour of an extended sentence.
Source excerpt
The UK Supreme Court considered whether a magistrates’ court could add a compensation order under article 158A after sentence, and whether the delay made the application unjust.
Explore more
