R v Bradley Cooke

1. MR JUSTICE GOOSE: On 12 May 2023 in the Crown Court at Durham before Her Honour Judge Kidd, the applicant pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited firearm, contrary to section 5(1)(a)(b)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968 and possession of ammunition without a certificate, contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the same Act. On the date of sentence the applicant was...

Source officielle

3 min de lecture 487 mots

1. MR JUSTICE GOOSE: On 12 May 2023 in the Crown Court at Durham before Her Honour Judge Kidd, the applicant pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited firearm, contrary to section 5(1)(a)(b)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968 and possession of ammunition without a certificate, contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the same Act. On the date of sentence the applicant was aged

20. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on each offence concurrently.

2. This application has been referred to the Full Court by the Registrar in respect of two errors that occurred in the sentencing process. Firstly, that the court did not state publicly that the applicant was entitled to credit against his custodial term for the time spent on bail subject to a Qualifying Curfew. Secondly, because the applicant was under the age of 21 when sentenced, his custodial term should not have been expressed as imprisonment but detention in a young offender institution, consistent with section 227 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

3. The application is also substantially out of time by 642 days, such that leave to appeal the sentence is required from this Court. We give leave both in relation to the extension of time and for the appeal against sentence.

4. Dealing with the necessary corrections in turn, the appellant had served 220 days under Qualifying Curfew whilst on bail and awaiting his trial and sentence. It appears from the grounds of appeal that this was brought to the attention of the court but, by an omission, was not referred to during sentencing. It was necessary to pronounce the sentence with any credit given for the time served and a Qualifying Curfew being discounted by 50 per cent in accordance with the decisions of this court in R v Thorsby [2015] EWCA Crim 1 and R v Marshall [2015] EWCA Crim 1999. The statutory provision for the reduction is contained within section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The prosecution in their Respondent's Note agree the appropriate reduction in sentence to be 110 days and invites this Court to accede to the appeal. Accordingly, we amend the concurrent sentences of five years on count both Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment now to be five years less 110 days on each offence.

5. Further, both of those sentences will be for detention in a young offender institution given that the appellant was aged 20 upon being sentenced. Accordingly, having granted leave and the extension of time, we allow this sentence appeal to the extent that we have stated. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected]


Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).

A propos de cette decision

Décisions similaires

Royaume-Uni

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights

Fiscal EN

Beacon Counselling Trust v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Introduction to the Appeal 1. On 23 May 2024, the Appellant submitted a request (“the Request”) to the Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for copies of correspondence making reference to the Appellant, which had been sent to or from a named person at the Trust from 1 February 2023 to the date of the Request. 2....

Royaume-Uni

High Court (Chancery Division)

Fiscal EN

Kalaivani Jaipal Kirishani v George Major

Sir Anthony Mann : Introduction 1. This is an appeal from an order of HHJ Gerald sitting in the County Court at Central London dated 23rd December 2024 in which he dismissed two of three claims made by Ms Kirishana as claimant against her former cohabitee Mr Major. The claims were for a contribution to household and other domestic expenses,...

Royaume-Uni

High Court (Insolvency and Companies List)

Commercial EN

Joanna Rich v JDDR Capital Limited

ICC JUDGE AGNELLO KC: Introduction 1. This is the judgment in relation to an application to set aside a statutory demand against Mrs Joanna Rich (Mrs Rich) and a petition against Mr Clive Rich (Mr Rich) relating to the same debt claimed under a personal guarantee provided by them in relation to a loan granted to LawBit Limited (Lawbit). Mr...

Analyse stratégique offerte

Envoyez vos pièces. Recevez une stratégie.

Transmettez-nous les pièces de votre dossier. Maître Hassan KOHEN vous répond personnellement sous 24 heures avec une première analyse stratégique de votre situation.

  • Première analyse offerte et sans engagement
  • Réponse personnelle de l'avocat sous 24 heures
  • 100 % confidentiel, secret professionnel garanti
  • Jusqu'à 1 Go de pièces, dossiers et sous-dossiers acceptés

Cliquez ou glissez vos fichiers ici
Tous formats acceptes (PDF, Word, images, etc.)

Envoi en cours...

Vos donnees sont utilisees uniquement pour traiter votre demande. Politique de confidentialite.