Marett v AG [2004] JRC 221 (21 December 2004)

Marett v AG [2004] JRC 221 (21 December 2004)

The aggregate sentence of 30 months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, as the breaking and entering was a separate offence from the motoring offences, the totality principle was properly applied, and the applicant's poor record and seriousness of the offences justified the sentence.

Citation
[2004] JRC 221
Parties
Applicant: Marett; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
21 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Totality Principle, Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences, Appeals Against Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Totality Principle Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences Appeals Against 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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marett

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inferior Number erred in fact regarding the taking of the vehicle
  2. 2 Whether the totality principle was correctly applied
  3. 3 Whether consecutive sentences were appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The aggregate sentence of 30 months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, as the breaking and entering was a separate offence from the motoring offences, the totality principle was properly applied, and the applicant's poor record and seriousness of the offences justified the sentence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.