BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Attorney General's Reference Nos. 31, 45, 43, 42, 50 & 51 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 1717 (24 June 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/1717.html
Cite as: [2004] EWCA Crim 1717
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWCA Crim 1717
No. 2004/01740/A6, 2004/02452/A9, 2004/02068/A3

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2
Thursday 24 June 2004

B e f o r e :

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
(The Lord Woolf of Barnes)
MR JUSTICE FORBES
and
MR JUSTICE BELL
____________________

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCE Nos. 31, 45, 43, 42, 50 & 51 of 2003
UNDER SECTION 36 OF
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988

____________________

Computer Aided Transcription by
Smith Bernal, 190 Fleet Street, London EC4A
Telephone No: 020-7421 4040
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MR RICHARD HORWELL and MR MARK HEYWOOD appeared on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL
MISS MARY ASPINALL MILES appeared on behalf of THE OFFENDER THOMAS M
MR A J DOWNE appeared on behalf of THE OFFENDER ADELE McLEAN
MR M BENSON appeared on behalf of THE OFFENDER DANIEL BURGESS
MR J HOLT appeared on behalf of THE OFFENDER ANTHONY COTTRILL
MISS A BYRNES appeared on behalf of THE OFFENDER SURINDER LEHAL
MR J O'HIGGINS appeared on behalf of THE OFFENDER BHUPINDER LEHAL
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:

  1. With regard to Thomas M, we do not propose to interfere with the sentence that was imposed in that case.

  2. Likewise in the case of McLean, we will not interfere.

  3. In the case of Burgess, the sentence will be interfered with; there will be a sentence of two-and-a-half years' imprisonment. We will have to hear about when he is required to surrender in relation to that sentence.

  4. In the case of Cottrill, we propose to increase the sentence to a total sentence of four years, of which two years will be the custodial period and the other two years will be the extended period.

  5. We have to work out from what date the sentences are to run, and we have to take into account any period while they have been in custody before they were sentenced. The appropriate calculation will be made to take account of that.

  6. In the cases of the Lehals, we are not going to alter the sentences.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010