McClements v AG [2002] JCA 132 (18 July 2002)

McClements v AG [2002] JCA 132 (18 July 2002)

There was no legitimate sense of injustice in the difference between the sentences of McClements and Cooke because the mitigating factors in Cooke's case were significantly stronger and justified a greater reduction; the reduction for McClements was appropriate given his criminal record and lack of equivalent mitigation.

Citation
[2002] JCA 132
Parties
Appellant: Gerald McClements; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
18 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Drug Offences, Appeals, Disparity of Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Drug Offences Appeals Disparity of Sentence

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerald McClements

Appellant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on McClements was manifestly excessive or gave rise to a legitimate sense of injustice due to disparity with a co-defendant's sentence
  2. 2 Whether the mitigating factors in McClements' case justified a greater reduction in sentence

Ratio Decidendi

There was no legitimate sense of injustice in the difference between the sentences of McClements and Cooke because the mitigating factors in Cooke's case were significantly stronger and justified a greater reduction; the reduction for McClements was appropriate given his criminal record and lack of equivalent mitigation.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
  • No direction under Article 35(4)(b) of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961.