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 allowed an appeal over a 16-week sentence, removed the direction that it run consecutively, granted an extension of time, and held it was served.
The aggregate sentence of 26 months was manifestly excessive due to double counting of aggravating features and insufficient reduction for personal mitigation; the appropriate sentence is 21 months, comprised of 15 months for affray and 6 months for dangerous driving, with no adjustment to the latter.
Source excerpt
The offence should have been categorised as 1B, not 1A, because there was insufficient evidence of significant planning; the combination of harm factors justified category 1 for harm, but not category A for culpability; the sentence of 15 years was manifestly excessive and is substituted with 12 years.
Source excerpt
The original sentence of 9 years was unduly lenient given the frequency and duration of the rapes, the severe and ongoing psychological harm, and the additional trauma caused by pregnancy. The proper sentence reflecting the totality of criminality and aggravating features is 16 years' imprisonment on each lead count, concurrent.
Source excerpt
The sentences for affray were excessive as the judge did not give sufficient weight to mitigation, particularly previous good character and employment. The appropriate sentence after trial was 24 months, reduced to 16 months for plea. The cannabis and bladed article sentences were appropriate. Suspension of sentence was not justified given the seriousness of the offences.
Source excerpt
The conviction for the Bail Act offence was unlawful and must be quashed due to the Rule of Specialty. The eight-year extended sentence for sexual assault was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's dangerousness, aggravating factors, and impact on the justice system.
Source excerpt
SHPO terms restricting internet use and social media were not necessary or proportionate as the offending did not involve sharing images online; only restrictions on possession and storage of digital images were justified.
Source excerpt
The evidence of grooming, vulnerability, and circumstances surrounding the sexual activity was sufficient for the jury to conclude lack of proper consent. Sentences imposed were within guideline ranges and not manifestly excessive. Restraining orders were not necessary given the historic nature of offences and lack of notice or reasons.
Source excerpt
The sentencing judge properly exercised discretion, considered the correct guideline, and balanced the relevant factors. The seriousness of repeated domestic abuse justified immediate custody, and the decision not to suspend was not unreasonable.
Source excerpt
The judge was entitled to place harm in the highest category based on the victim's vulnerability and the evidence of very serious distress caused by the stalking behaviour; expert evidence was not required for this assessment.
Source excerpt
Explore more
