A total sentence of two-and-half years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender for a robbery at a convenience store whist carrying of a knife and an attempted robbery of a bookmakers was unduly lenient. The judge had significantly understated the gravity of the offending and had overstated the allowance to be made for the offender’s mitigation.
The Court of Appeal reduced a nine-month sentence for the breach of two freezing orders to one of six months’ imprisonment in light of the effect the contemnor’s imprisonment was having on her 13-year-old son. However, the disruption to the relationship between mother and son did not justify the suspension of the sentence.
A sentence of 12 months’ immediate imprisonment for an offender who had pleaded guilty to affray arising from an altercation between football supporters should have been suspended. Had the judge obtained a pre-sentence report and correctly considered the relevant sentencing guidelines, the sentence would have been suspended as the offender had a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, a strong personal mitigation and immediate custody had significant harmful impact on his dependents.
Two individuals, who had admitted to being in contempt of court by publishing online information purporting to the identity one of James Bulger’s killers, were sentenced to twelve months and eight months’ imprisonment respectively, suspended for two years. The court made clear that had it not been for their strong personal mitigation, immediate prison sentences would have been imposed.
A sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm with intent expressed as an extended sentence pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.226A, comprising a custodial term of 15 years and an extension period of five years was quashed and replaced by a determinate sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. A significant determinate sentence was appropriate without the need for an extension.