[2018] EWCA Crim 1944 [2018] EWCA Crim 1944

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.

[2018] EWCA Crim 1926 [2018] EWCA Crim 1926

Sentences of three years, nine months’ imprisonment for an offender who pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm, and four years, six months’ imprisonment for an offender who had been found guilty after trial for the same offence, were unduly lenient.

[2018] EWCA Crim 1775 [2018] EWCA Crim 1775

There was no support for a change to the principle that consecutive sentences should not be imposed for offences arising out of a single incident. A starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment was appropriate for two counts of causing death by dangerous driving where the offender had killed two young children while disqualified from driving, run away from the scene, denied driving the vehicle, taken a mixture of drugs before driving and had several previous convictions for driving while disqualified.

A sentence of four months’ imprisonment for assault by penetration by an individual against his partner of 23 years was unduly lenient; offences committed in the domestic context were no less serious than those committed in a non-domestic context. The sentence was quashed and was replaced by one of 21 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months.

[2018] EWCA Crim 1552 [2018] EWCA Crim 1552

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.