R v DARREN RILEY (2019)

As the Attorney General had a statutory responsibility to personally consider whether sentences should be referred to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient, it was inimical to the public interest for judges, when exercising their discretion as to the provision of a transcript of a sentence hearing, to restrict or limit the provision of […]

Read More

R v YZ : R v ANDREW BARKER (2019)

Total sentences of six years and nine months’ imprisonment and six years’ imprisonment imposed on a male and female offender respectively following guilty pleas to child sex offences were lenient, but not unduly lenient. The female offender had sent the male offender images of her and her daughter, aged between two and six, engaging in […]

Read More

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S REFERENCE (NO.74 OF 2015) sub nom R v N (2015)

A sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, imposed following convictions for four offences of rape and two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, was increased to 16 years’ imprisonment with an extended licence period of five years, where the offender was dangerous and had committed the offences while serving a community sentence for a previous […]

Read More

R v JAMES PAUL KING (2015)

A seven-and-a-half year custodial sentence was appropriate for an offender convicted of historic sexual offences against two young children he had babysat when he was a teenager and young adult. The sentence correctly reflected the relevant factors under the modern sentencing regime without exceeding the maximum sentence available at the time of the offending.

Read More

R v MYLES JAMES EDWARD BRADBURY (2015)

A total sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment imposed on a hospital doctor for sexual offences against children was not excessive in view of the egregious breach of trust involved. A finding of dangerousness was also justified, notwithstanding that the offences had not involved penetrative sexual activity, because of the far-reaching consequences of the offending and […]

Read More

R v KUJTIM GJONI (2014)

A trial judge had correctly ruled that the contents of a conversation revealing details about a rape victim’s previous sexual behaviour were not admissible under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.41.

Read More