Skip to Main Content

Find Case LawBeta

Judgments and decisions from 2001 onwards

Attorney General's Reference Nos. 31, 45, 43, 42, 50 & 51 of 2003

[2004] EWCA Crim 1717

No. 2004/01740/A6, 2004/02452/A9, 2004/02068/A3

2004/03055/A4, 2004/02497/A2, 2004/02498/A2

Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWCA Crim 1717
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

__________________

J U D G M E N T

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.

Attorney General's Reference Nos. 31, 45, 43, 42, 50 & 51 of 2003

[2004] EWCA Crim 1717

Download options

Download this judgment as a PDF (41.8 KB)

The original format of the judgment as handed down by the court, for printing and downloading.

Download this judgment as XML

The judgment in machine-readable LegalDocML format for developers, data scientists and researchers.