Hollman v Att. Gen. [1995] JLR_Note 22c (04 April 1995)
The court held that disparity in sentencing must be justified by material differences in the facts or circumstances of the cases; otherwise, it may be grounds for appellate intervention.
- Parties
- Applicant: Hollman; Respondent: Attorney General
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 04 April 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Sentencing Review
- Outcome
- judgment not fully available; outcome indeterminate
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Sentence Disparity
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 1 Party arguments 2
Parties
Hollman
Applicant
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Sentencing Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was an unjustified disparity between sentences imposed
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that disparity in sentencing must be justified by material differences in the facts or circumstances of the cases; otherwise, it may be grounds for appellate intervention.
Court Disposition
judgment not fully available; outcome indeterminate
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