UNDUE LENIENCY

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.

[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.

[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.

An offender was sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment for robbing a convenience store. A three-year community order with a rehabilitation activity requirement had been unduly lenient, given the offender’s previous convictions and the fact that he had been on bail at the time of the robbery.

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.