The court upheld an offender’s convictions for murder and attempted murder following the fatal shooting of a member of a rival gang.
A judge had not erred when sentencing an offender to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 10 years, as a sentence of “last resort” for extreme child sex offences committed over a number of years against his own children. The sentence was also not unduly lenient, despite the minimum term not being increased when the offender was sentenced for further offences which involved the same children being offered to other men for sexual purposes.
An appellant’s convictions for conspiracy to import and supply class A drugs were safe. Decisions taken during the trial by defence counsel to adduce evidence of the appellant’s previous convictions, to call a co-accused as a witness and not to correct an alleged omission from the defence statement were not unreasonable or outside the range of decisions open to competent counsel.
Evidence of a step-father’s controlling behaviour towards his wife and step-son had been relevant evidence at his trial for 16 sexual offences against his step-daughter, as his defence was that his step-daughter was lying and exaggerating his controlling behaviour and the evidence was relevant to the issue of her credibility. A total sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
A 12-month custodial sentence was imposed on an individual who had deliberately caused a road traffic accident in order to defraud an insurance company, and who had lied in documents supported by statements of truth. A nine-month suspended sentence was imposed on his wife for her participation in the fraud. The court reiterated the importance of deterrent sentences for those bringing fraudulent claims against insurance companies.