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
Toon, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 622 (06 May 2026)
The Court of Appeal reduced and suspended Samuel Toon’s sentence for affray, finding the judge had not properly reflected mitigation or guilty plea credit.
Bristow, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 633 (22 April 2026)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a sentence appeal for dangerous driving, holding that the uplift and refusal to suspend custody were justified by the seriousness of the driving.
Courtney, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 525 (16 April 2026)
The Court of Appeal upheld an 18-month custodial sentence for causing serious injury by dangerous driving, rejecting arguments that it should be suspended.
Wilson, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 427 (15 April 2026)
Court of Appeal declined to alter a suspended sentence for controlling or coercive behaviour, criticising the sentencing remarks but finding the sentence not unduly lenient.
The Court of Appeal increased sentences for a fraud conspiracy and linked drug offences, finding the original sentences unduly lenient and wrongly structured.
Fairfield, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 567 (31 March 2026)
The Court of Appeal upheld a 16-month immediate custodial sentence for burglary committed during the Southport disorder, rejecting arguments that mental health required suspension.
The Court of Appeal reduced and suspended Sam Minter’s sentence for affray, threats to kill, and non-fatal strangulation after finding counts 4 and 6 were too high.
The Court of Appeal suspended an 18-month sentence for section 20 GBH, holding that autism, ADD, good character, and mitigation justified suspension.
Kiernan & Ors, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 492 (19 March 2026)
Court of Appeal increased sentences for three drug conspirators, held remand time should not be deducted from suspended terms, and left other sentences unchanged.
The decision to impose an immediate sentence of imprisonment was manifestly excessive because the appellant demonstrated a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, did not currently present a high risk of offending or harm, and had strong personal mitigation. The judge failed to give sufficient weight to these factors and mischaracterised the process as requiring persuasion to suspend.
Source excerpt
Explore more
