A university’s decision to exclude a student from a pharmacy degree course on the basis of non-disclosure of criminal convictions received as a juvenile was quashed. The university’s fitness to practise panel’s failure to take into account the student’s considerable mitigation meant that it had not struck a fair balance between his rights and the protection of the public.
A sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment imposed following a conviction for kidnapping was not unduly lenient where an offender with learning difficulties had used minimal force to detain his fiancee for a maximum of ten minutes and where the offence had no lasting effect on the victim, who had been in a relationship with the offender for three years and still intended to marry him.
The court gave guidance on the considerations to take into account when sentencing for an offence of reckless arson.
A sentence of two years’ imprisonment following a guilty plea to two counts of fraudulent evasion of duty contrary to the Customs & Excise Management Act 1971 s.170(2) was manifestly excessive in circumstances where the offender had become involved in the criminal activity through coercion and intimidation. A sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years with a two-year supervision requirement was substituted.
A sentence of two months’ imprisonment for bringing a controlled drug into a prison was appropriate despite the fact that the offender was a carer for her disabled daughter and grandchild. The judge had also been entitled to activate part of the offender’s suspended sentence for a different offence and order it to run consecutively.