An eight-year extended sentence, comprising a five-year custodial term and a three-year extension period, was appropriate in the case of a 15-year-old who had been convicted of wounding with intent. The nature of the offence, the stabbing of a woman on the street at night, together with the offender’s lack of self-control and propensity for aggression meant that he was dangerous and an extended sentence was necessary to protect the public.
A life sentence with a minimum term of 11 years and 68 days was unduly lenient where an offender had killed his partner using two knives while under the influence of drugs, and was increased to a minimum term of 14 years and 190 days. However, it was not treated as a domestic violence case as there had been no history of domestic violence in the relationship.
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 suspended sentence of 18 month’s imprisonment, suspended for two years, was unduly lenient in the case of an offender who had pleaded guilty to producing a class B drug and possession of Class A and Class B drugs with intent to supply.
A term of two years imprisonment suspended for two years imposed for seven counts of sexual assault of a child over 13, which occurred 20-25 times over a five-month period on an eight-year-old girl was unduly lenient. Although the judge had given reasons for departing significantly from the relevant sentencing guidelines by reference to the offender’s “childlike mentality” and vulnerability, that did not justify such a departure and the appropriate sentence was one of three years’ imprisonment.