On 7th November, The Court of Appeal gave judgment on an ‘appeal’ by the Attorney-General (a reference to the Court of Appeal as he felt the original sentence was unduly leniant) . The BBC reported it here.
The three offenders (Matthew Wood, Christopher Weaver and Daniel Jones) were sentenced 31st July this year for various offences. These came from a house invasion where the 76 year old victim was tied up and attacked (causing a fracture to his eye socket and necessitating a week in hospital). They got away with a car and £20 in cash.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentences were unduly lenient and increased the sentences against all three. The adjustments were different to reflect the different specific sentences that were received (reflecting their different pleas and differing roles and previous offending), but basically the trial judge took a starting point after a trial of 8 years and the Court concluded that it should have been 10-11 and increased the sentences by around two years each.
(1) Whilst this case was not prominent in the news, nor raised any great legal principles, it is noted here as the judgment does a good job of analysing the various cases dealing with sentencing or robberies that don’t fall within the Robbery Sentencing Guidelines as they are more serious. However…
(2) One thing to note is that there is no reference to the historic principle of ‘double jeopardy‘ – the idea that someone who is re-sentenced after a successful reference by the Attorney-General should have a discount to reflect this. Is this an oversight from the Court of Appeal?