A sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, was appropriate in the case of a mother who had pleaded guilty to child neglect after her baby son had died while in her care.
A judge had not been justified in attributing a leading role in the intended supply of drugs to an offender convicted of possession with intent to supply a Class A drug where there was no evidence to suggest such a significant role. His serious medical condition and its impact on him constituted an exceptional circumstance which justified reducing his sentence.
There had been no inconsistency in convicting a company of failing to ensure that work at height was properly planned contrary to the Work at Height Regulations 2005 reg.4(1) and acquitting it of failing to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and failing to ensure, as far as reasonably practical, the health and safety of its employees. The judge had been wrong to assess culpability as being high; the fine imposed was reduced from £900,000 to £135,000.
A planned and organised robbery of a travellers’ site fell within Category 1A of the “robbery in a dwelling” sentencing guideline. The starting point was 13 years’ imprisonment, and the range was 10 to 16 years. Although the guideline indicated that a sentence of more than 13 years could be imposed in a case of particular gravity, the reference to 13 years was an error and had to be read as 16 years. The concept of “particular gravity” was not limited to cases in which extreme violence had been used.
The appropriate sentence to be imposed on an offender who had pleaded guilty to stalking over a three-month period was three years’ imprisonment. In imposing a seven-year extended sentence, the sentencing judge had been wrong to assess harm as high, and had been wrong to find that the offender was dangerous.