The court quashed an 18-year minimum term attached to a life sentence imposed on an offender following his conviction for murder and replaced it with one of 21 years. Notwithstanding that the offender had taken a sword only a short distance outside the premises into the garden, he had taken a weapon to the scene and used it to kill within the meaning of para.5A of Sch 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 such that a starting point of 25 years was appropriate.
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.
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.