Bevan v AG [2003] JCA 014 (17 January 2003)

Bevan v AG [2003] JCA 014 (17 January 2003)

The appeal is allowed solely on the ground of unjustified disparity between the appellant's sentence and that of the co-accused, as the leniency shown to the co-accused was inexplicable and created a justified sense of grievance for the appellant.

Citation
[2003] JCA 014
Parties
Appellant: Neil John Bevan; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
17 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Drug Offences, Disparity in Sentencing, Appeals
Criminal Law Sentencing Drug Offences Disparity in Sentencing Appeals

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil John Bevan

Appellant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether there was unjustified disparity between the sentences of co-accused

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed solely on the ground of unjustified disparity between the appellant's sentence and that of the co-accused, as the leniency shown to the co-accused was inexplicable and created a justified sense of grievance for the appellant.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentence on Count 5 reduced to 4 years' imprisonment
  • Sentence on Count 6 reduced to 2 years 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent