A sentence of 6 years' imprisonment imposed for attempting to kidnap was not manifestly excessive given the violent nature of the offence.
|
A sentence of 2 years' imprisonment imposed for an offence of kidnapping was longer than necessary and manifestly excessive given the unusual circumstances of the case and the offender's emotional vulnerability.
|
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction:- Here the appellants appealed against their conviction at the High Court in Edinburgh on 6 July 2005 of a charge of attempted murder. The appeal was heard in two stages. In the first stage of the appeal the court held that the passages of the trial judge's charge subject of that part of the appeal, when read in the context of the trial judge's charge as a whole, did not constitute any misdirection and the appeals were refused. The second stage of the appeal wa ...
|
The convictions of D, who was unrepresented, were safe, despite prosecution counsel having made a second speech to the jury after the evidence had been given at trial.
|
A recommendation that a deportation order be made in respect of a Zimbabwean national who had been convicted of fraud offences was neither necessary nor appropriate given the United Kingdom's policy towards Zimbabweans.
|
An immediate custodial sentence was inevitable for an offence of possession of false identity documents with intent where an asylum seeker had used the documents to obtain work dishonestly and, although entitled to it, had deliberately not claimed asylum support in order to keep out of sight of the authorities.
|
A sentence of 12 months' detention imposed for possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of ammunition without a firearms certificate was unduly lenient and was replaced with a sentence of 3 years' detention. The fact that D had been only 16 and had committed the offences in order to protect himself did not amount to exceptional circumstances.
|
Evidence in relation to a count on an indictment was capable of being admitted as bad character evidence in relation to any other count if it met the criteria set out in the CJA 2003 s.101(1). In the first appeal the trial judge was correct to refuse to sever the counts on the indictment and, in relation to the second appeal, the evidence on one count was admissible in relation to the other as the evidence made it more likely that the appellant had committed the offence.
|
A conviction for robbery was safe where there was no evidence that undermined the identification evidence of a witness.
|
A sentence of 4 years' imprisonment imposed for blackmail, involving a demand for £50,000 as recompense for psychological injuries suffered as a result of being sexually abused by the complainant, was manifestly excessive having regard to the background of the offender and the offence. The sentence was reduced to 2 years and 8 months.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |