000

A total sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years, imposed for a number of drug offences including the possession with intent to supply of a large quantity of Class B and C drugs, was found to be unduly lenient. However, the court declined to vary the sentence, citing the offender’s previous good character and exemplary work record.

[2012] EWCA Crim 2464

A sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of the first appellant, who had been convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery after taking part in the ram-raid of a bank and the theft from it of £108,000. Further, a sentence of nine years was justified in the case of the second appellant, who had pleaded guilty to the same offence.

[2012] EWCA Crim 1870

Sentences of two years, 30 months, and 20 months’ imprisonment respectively were appropriate in the case of three offenders who had adapted a garage to operate as a commercial cannabis farm capable of producing 5.3 kg of cannabis with a wholesale value of £16,000.

[2011] EWCA Crim 201

A total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment after trial was manifestly excessive for two separate ram-raid burglaries which had been professionally planned and executed, and which had involved the theft of automatic telling machines and the use of stolen vehicles. A total sentence of ten years’ imprisonment was substituted for the original term.

[2010] EWCA Crim 988

A sentence of five years’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of an offender who had pleaded guilty to laundering just short of £100,000, that sum being the proceeds of crimes that the judge was entitled to conclude were drug offences.

[2009] EWCA Crim 881

It was unlawful for a youth court to impose a detention and training order for an offence of criminal damage in respect of a youth aged 17 or under where the value of the damage was specified and was less than £5,000.

[2006] EWHC 2527 (Admin)

In assessing the value of criminal damage caused to a genetically modified crop, the magistrates had correctly determined the value of the damage to the crop itself without taking into account consequential losses sustained as a result of the damage.

[2001] EWHC Admin 136

In an unsuccessful appeal against conviction where the appellant had been charged, inter alia, with racially aggravated criminal damage, the judge had been entitled to put an alternative and lesser charge of simple criminal damage to the jury without amending the indictment to add an additional count as criminal damage was not triable only summarily. Accordingly, R v Burt (1996) 161 JPN 77 was decided per incuriam.

In an application for judicial review following a refusal, by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, to review the applicant’s conviction for conspiracy to cheat the Inland Revenue permission would be granted on the ground that the Commission could not rely on an error of law in its decision under s.13 Criminal Appeal Act 1995.