Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Before:
LORD JUSTICE STUART SMITH
MR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY
and
HIS HONOUR JUDGE ST. JOHN-STEVENS
Between:
REX | Respondent |
- and - | |
CDA | Appellant |
Counsel instructed by Solicitors for the Appellant
Counsel instructed by CPS for the Respondent
WARNING: REPORTING RESTRICTIONS APPLY to the contents transcribed in this document, as stated in paragraph 1 of the judgment. Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, nothing may be included in any report of these proceedings which names, or may otherwise lead members of the public to identify, the appellant referred to as CDA. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on Wednesday 5 November by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
Mr Justice Choudhury:
An anonymity order has been made in this case. We are satisfied that the risk of harm to the Appellant if he was identified necessitates a derogation from the important principle of open justice, and we order that he remain anonymous. Accordingly, as stated above, pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, nothing may be included in any report of these proceedings which names or may otherwise lead members of the public to identify the Appellant, who must be referred to by the randomly chosen letters CDA. Consistently with that order, we shall not in this open judgment identify the court in which, or the judge by whom, CDA was sentenced.
The Appellant pleaded guilty to serious offences. At a subsequent sentencing hearing he made submissions on a number of points including the appropriate starting points, personal mitigation and totality. The Judge imposed a total custodial term of several years.
With the leave of the Single Judge, the Appellant appealed to this court, submitting that the custodial term was manifestly excessive on grounds relating to the starting points, totality and the weight given by the sentencing judge to the personal mitigation in the case.
Having considered those submissions and for reasons fully set out in the closed judgment in the case, we were persuaded that the total custodial term was manifestly excessive. We therefore allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence on one count and substituted a lower sentence.