1999/125 - AG v Wright [1999] UR 125 (12 July 1999)

1999/125 - AG v Wright [1999] UR 125 (12 July 1999)

The disparity in sentences between the appellant and his co-defendant was justified by significant differences in their roles, culpability, prior convictions, and personal circumstances. The sentence imposed on the appellant was appropriate and did not give rise to a legitimate sense of injustice. The appeal was dismissed as there was no error in principle or manifest excess in the sentence imposed.

Citation
[1999] UR 125
Parties
Appellant: Michael Derek Wright; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
12 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Drug Offences, Importation of Controlled Drugs, Disparity in Sentencing
Criminal Law Sentencing Drug Offences Importation of Controlled Drugs Disparity in Sentencing

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Derek Wright

Appellant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of 11 years' imprisonment imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive in light of the lower sentence imposed on a co-defendant for the same offence
  2. 2 Whether disparity in sentencing between co-defendants amounted to a miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The disparity in sentences between the appellant and his co-defendant was justified by significant differences in their roles, culpability, prior convictions, and personal circumstances. The sentence imposed on the appellant was appropriate and did not give rise to a legitimate sense of injustice. The appeal was dismissed as there was no error in principle or manifest excess in the sentence imposed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The sentence of 11 years' imprisonment imposed on the appellant is upheld.