{"id":658858,"date":"2026-04-23T12:21:57","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:21:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T12:21:57","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:21:57","slug":"rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\/","title":{"rendered":"REX v JOSHUA ANTHONY KEHOE (AKA YATES) & Anor."},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

LORD JUSTICE SINGH: Introduction 1 This is an\u00a0application on behalf of His\u00a0Majesty's Solicitor General for permission to refer two sentences which are regarded as being unduly lenient under s.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act"). 2 The\u00a0principles to be applied on such an\u00a0application are well established and have been summarised as follows: (1) The\u00a0judge at first instance is particularly well placed to assess the\u00a0weight to be given to competing factors in considering sentence. (2) A\u00a0sentence is only unduly lenient where it falls outside the\u00a0range of sentences which the\u00a0judge at first instance might reasonably consider appropriate. (3) Leave to refer a\u00a0sentence should only be granted by this court in exceptional circumstances and not in borderline cases. (4) Section 36 of the 1988 Act is designed to deal with cases where judges have fallen into gross error: see, for example, Attorney General Reference (Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846, [2022] 2 Crim App R (S) 10 at para.72 in the\u00a0judgment given by the\u00a0Chancellor of the High Court. 3 In the\u00a0present case, on 15\u00a0June\u00a02022 at the Crown Court at Liverpool, HHJ\u00a0Bond sentenced George Harper to a\u00a0total of two\u00a0years and eight\u00a0months' imprisonment and Joshua Kehoe to a\u00a0total of four\u00a0years' imprisonment. Harper had pleaded guilty to five offences on the\u00a0indictment. Kehoe pleaded guilty to four offences on the same indictment. There was one count, Count\u00a05, which concerned only Harper. The\u00a0other matters were to lie on the file in the\u00a0usual way. 4 The\u00a0lead offence in this case was an\u00a0offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to s.18 of the Offences Against the\u00a0Person Act 1861. That was the\u00a0subject of Count\u00a02. Count\u00a03 was an\u00a0offence of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s.20 of the\u00a01861 Act. The\u00a0judge imposed a\u00a0sentence on Harper of four\u00a0months' imprisonment made concurrent and a\u00a0sentence of four months on Kehoe. Count\u00a04 was an\u00a0offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s.47 of the 1861 Act. The\u00a0judge imposed a\u00a0sentence of six\u00a0months on each defendant made concurrent. Count\u00a05, as we have said, concerned only Harper. This was an\u00a0offence also under s.47. The\u00a0judge imposed a\u00a0concurrent sentence of six months. Count\u00a07 was another offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The\u00a0judge again imposed concurrent sentences of six\u00a0months on each defendant. The\u00a0Facts 5 In summary, the\u00a0case arose from a\u00a0violent incident in a\u00a0public house during the early hours of Sunday, 13\u00a0May\u00a02021. A\u00a0number of people were assaulted, including the\u00a0landlord, Mr\u00a0John Lunt. He suffered, amongst other injuries, a\u00a0fractured skull. That assault was the\u00a0subject of Count\u00a02. A\u00a0Mr\u00a0Gledhill suffered a\u00a0dislocated shoulder. That was the subject of Count\u00a03. A\u00a0Mr\u00a0McSweeney-Forrester suffered a\u00a0cut on his head which required stitches. That was the subject of count\u00a04. A\u00a0Mr\u00a0Anthony received a\u00a0black eye. That was the\u00a0subject of Count\u00a05. Finally, a\u00a0Mr\u00a0Clark-Royal was also assaulted and suffered concussion. That was the\u00a0subject of Count\u00a07. 6 The\u00a0facts are set out in more detail in the\u00a0final reference at para.12 to 41 and we will summarise the\u00a0essential facts. 7 On the\u00a0evening of Saturday, 29\u00a0May\u00a02021 the\u00a0landlord of the\u00a0Manor Farm Public House in Rainhill Hill, Merseyside had arranged for a\u00a0party to take place. There were no incidents during the\u00a0course of that evening. The\u00a0offenders arrived in the\u00a0company of a\u00a0third man, who did not get involved in the\u00a0violence which ensued, shortly after 11.00\u00a0pm. They were dressed in a\u00a0way which was consistent with their being door staff. They spoke with Mr\u00a0Lunt, the landlord of this pub, and said they had been working\u00a0the door at an\u00a0event at Rainhill Hall. They asked if they could work the\u00a0door at this pub in\u00a0future. Mr\u00a0Lunt told them that he was happy with his present door staff and did not require their assistance. The conversation was amicable. 8 Later on a\u00a0disagreement ensued. It is not necessary for present purposes to go into the\u00a0details of that. It should be noted, however, that this led to Kehoe being told to leave, but he stood his ground. He made various threats. He said to Mr\u00a0Lunt that he would "terror" the\u00a0pub. He said that he was "Going to do [him] in". A\u00a0member of staff, Sarah Bowers, approached Kehoe. She put her arms around him. She said "Just come with me and we can talk about it outside," but Kehoe continued to shout. However, he did go with Ms\u00a0Bowers and left the\u00a0pub. The\u00a0assistant manager, Scott\u00a0Carter, a\u00a0friend of Mr\u00a0Lunt, Stephen Gledhill and Harper also left the\u00a0building. Mr\u00a0Gledhill stood in the\u00a0doorway. Mr\u00a0Lunt joined them. They were observing to see if Kehoe and Harper would leave the\u00a0premises. Kehoe walked over to Mr\u00a0Lunt. Mr\u00a0Lunt said that he was going to check the\u00a0CCTV. If it showed that nothing had been taken [that was a\u00a0reference to their earlier argument], he would apologise. Kehoe replied, "Just give me \u00a3500". Harper walked over to Mr Gledhill and said, "Do you want a\u00a0fight?" Kehoe then punched Mr\u00a0Gledhill, but the\u00a0punch missed. However, he threw a\u00a0second punch, which struck Mr\u00a0Gledhill's left ear. Mr\u00a0Gledhill fought back, head-butting his attacker in the face. Both Mr Gledhill and Kehoe threw punches at each other. Harper tried to grab Mr\u00a0Gledhill who was able to fend him off. However, he was then overpowered and forced to the\u00a0floor. He was punched and kicked. This was inside the\u00a0pub close to the\u00a0office and was the\u00a0subject of Count\u00a03. 9 Mr\u00a0Lunt tried to intervene. He pinned Kehoe against a\u00a0wall. Harper elbowed him in the\u00a0left temple. Mr\u00a0Lunt was stunned and let go of Kehoe. Harper\u00a0then targeted a\u00a0Mr\u00a0Jack\u00a0Anthony, who was a\u00a0customer of the\u00a0pub. He described Harper as "snarling". Harper threw a\u00a0flurry of punches, hitting Mr\u00a0Anthony in the\u00a0face and causing his glasses to fall off. Mr\u00a0Anthony thinks that he may have been concussed. He recalled at one moment being at the top of the stairs and subsequently at the bottom. That was the\u00a0subject of Count\u00a05. 10 Kehoe and Harper then left the building. Kehoe was escorted by a\u00a0Mr\u00a0Jake Clark-Royal. This part of the incident was captured on CCTV footage, which we have viewed, as we have the\u00a0rest of the CCTV footage which is available. Mr\u00a0Clark-Royal let go of Kehoe. At that point, Kehoe punched him in the\u00a0face. This caused him to fall to the\u00a0floor. Kehoe kicked him twice in the\u00a0vicinity of his head. Harper crouched over Mr\u00a0Clark-Royal and punched him once. This was subject of Count 7. Mr\u00a0Lunt was shouting, "Leave him alone". 11 Kehoe and Harper then forced their way back into the\u00a0pub. Mr\u00a0Carter tried to close the\u00a0door. However, they forced it open. The\u00a0offenders left Mr\u00a0Clark-Royal apparently unresponsive on the floor outside the\u00a0building. At that point, we should mention, as we have said, that we have viewed the\u00a0CCTV footage of events on the night of the incident. The\u00a0violence shown on it would shock any reasonable person. For example, in the\u00a0incident which we are currently describing the\u00a0offenders hit Mr\u00a0Clark-Royal while he was on the ground, leaving him prone and still. They showed a\u00a0callous disregard for his welfare as they returned to the pub to carry on assaulting other people. 12 Both offenders then targeted Mr\u00a0Lunt. Kehoe punched Mr\u00a0Lunt hard in the\u00a0face. He continued to punch him. The\u00a0attack caused Mr\u00a0Lunt to fall to the\u00a0floor. Kehoe stood over Mr\u00a0Lunt. He was shouting, "You lot have caused this accusing me of stealing money. You now owe me \u00a3500. I\u00a0want my \u00a3500 now or I\u00a0am going to tear you apart." Harper was holding Sarah Bowers who was begging them to stop. Mr\u00a0Lunt said, "I\u00a0will get you your \u00a3500. Just get out of my face and I\u00a0will go and get it for you". Mr\u00a0Lunt got off the\u00a0floor and walked towards the\u00a0office. As he did so, he noticed a\u00a0number of people, both staff and customers. He advised them to lock themselves in the\u00a0toilets. Mr\u00a0Lunt opened the\u00a0safe and counted out \u00a3500. 13 Whilst Mr\u00a0Lunt was in the\u00a0office getting the\u00a0money, Kehoe grabbed a\u00a0Mr\u00a0Hannon. He dragged him through the\u00a0bar area and to the\u00a0till. He said "Get me \u00a3500 out of that till before I\u00a0stab you". Mr\u00a0Hannon was terrified. He said there was no money in the\u00a0till. He said he would have to go upstairs to get it. At this point, Harper got in between them. Mr\u00a0Hannon left the bar area and went upstairs to the\u00a0office and saw Mr\u00a0Lunt. Mr\u00a0Lunt told Mr\u00a0Hannon to wait in the\u00a0office and he would get rid of the offenders by giving them the\u00a0money. Kehoe went behind the\u00a0bar and took a\u00a0bottle of wine from the fridges at the back of the bar area. Harper was scuffling with a\u00a0customer called John\u00a0Ashton who was standing at the bar. Kehoe struck Mr\u00a0Ashton with the bottle. Harper threw a punch at Mr\u00a0McSweeney-Forrester, who was on crutches at the time. This did not connect. Kehoe then joined in the assault, hitting Mr\u00a0McSweeney-Forrester with a\u00a0bottle. That was subject of Count 4. 14 As Mr\u00a0Lunt returned, he saw Kehoe with the bottle in his hand and said "I'm the\u00a0one you want. Come to me and leave the\u00a0kids alone". He was holding the\u00a0\u00a3500. Kehoe proceeded to strike Mr\u00a0Lunt with the bottle in the\u00a0face. This knocked him to the\u00a0floor. Kehoe tried to grab the money. Both males then kicked Mr\u00a0Lunt as he lay on the floor. That was the subject of Count 2. Mr\u00a0Lunt recalls letting go of the money and losing consciousness. However, when he regained consciousness, he could see the\u00a0money lying on the floor around him. 15 Following these assaults, the offenders left the\u00a0pub, Kehoe still holding the\u00a0wine bottle. A\u00a0male was present outside. He\u00a0can be seen on the CCTV footage with his hands up. Kehoe threatened him with a\u00a0bottle. Harper punched him in the head. Both offenders then left the\u00a0area. 16 We turn briefly to the\u00a0injuries which resulted. In particular, we must note that Mr\u00a0Lunt suffered a\u00a0fractured skull, a\u00a0fractured nose, a\u00a0fractured left cheekbone and other various small injuries. Mr\u00a0Gledhill suffered a\u00a0dislocated shoulder that required surgery to repair. Mr\u00a0McSweeney-Forrester required three stitches to a\u00a0cut on his head. Mr\u00a0Anthony was concussed and had a\u00a0black eye and soreness to his eye socket. He had a\u00a0CT scan, but did not require further treatment. Finally, we note that Mr\u00a0Clark-Royal had a\u00a0CT scan but required no further treatment. He felt sick and faint for a\u00a0few days. The Sentencing Process 17 Harper was born on 27\u00a0November\u00a01991 and was aged 30 at the date of sentence. He had no previous convictions, although he did have a\u00a0previous caution for possession of cannabis. 18 Kehoe was born on 23\u00a0July\u00a01993 and was aged 28 at the date of sentence. He has 16 convictions for 20 offences, including battery. There had been previous offences of violence against his mother, stepfather and a previous partner, although it should be noted that he had not previously served a\u00a0custodial sentence. 19 The\u00a0pre-sentence report in respect of Harper assessed him as posing a\u00a0low risk of re-offending, but posing a\u00a0high risk of harm to the\u00a0public. It was noted that he had accepted responsibility for the offending, expressed regret and there had been no repeat of his behaviour in the\u00a012\u00a0months since the\u00a0offences had taken place. 20 The\u00a0pre-sentence report in relation to Kehoe assessed him as posing a\u00a0medium risk of reconviction and posing a\u00a0high risk of serious harm to the\u00a0public in general of physical violence. There was a\u00a0psychological report on Kehoe dated 8\u00a0June\u00a02022. This said that the offender presented with "severe symptomatology related to ADHD". 21 The\u00a0judge also had the\u00a0advantage of character references in relation to the two offenders, as well as victim personal statements, which set out the\u00a0continuing impact on each of the five victims. It should particularly be noted that in the\u00a0case of Mr\u00a0Lunt and his partner, Samantha Casey, they lost their home as a\u00a0consequence of his losing his job at the pub. 22 By reference to the\u00a0relevant guidelines, the\u00a0judge concluded that the most serious offence, Count 2, fell into Category\u00a03 harm and Category B culpability. That led her to a starting point of four\u00a0years' custody with a\u00a0range of three to six\u00a0years. That was of course before taking account of guilty pleas. The\u00a0judge gave full credit for those, so the\u00a0sentence after trial would have been six\u00a0years on the most serious count, the\u00a0s.18 offence. The\u00a0judge made the\u00a0other sentences concurrent, as she was entitled to do, although it was then necessary to have regard to the\u00a0principle of totality so as to ensure that the total sentence was just and proportionate and reflected the\u00a0overall gravity of the\u00a0offending taken as a\u00a0whole. Submissions for the Solicitor General 23 On behalf of the\u00a0Solicitor General, it is submitted by Mr\u00a0Holt that the\u00a0judge passed a\u00a0sentence which was unduly lenient. Although the\u00a0structure of a\u00a0sentence is matter for the judge, it is submitted that consecutive sentences were appropriate in this case. Even if that is not accepted, it is submitted that having decided to impose concurrent sentences, the\u00a0judge ought to have increased the\u00a0sentence for the lead offence to reflect the\u00a0overall offending. Complaint is also made that the issue of dangerousness was not addressed by the judge at all. It is recognised on behalf of the\u00a0respondent offenders that it should have been, because there were a\u00a0number of specified offences which had been committed. 24 Turning to Mr\u00a0Holt's more detailed submissions, he notes that there was a\u00a0statutory aggravating factor; namely, that the offences were committed against people who were providing a\u00a0service to the\u00a0public. In addition, Kehoe had relevant previous convictions. A\u00a0further aggravating feature was that the offences were committed whilst the\u00a0offenders were under the influence of alcohol and drugs. It is also submitted that although the\u00a0individual assaults were relatively short lived the\u00a0overall incident was prolonged and the violence was persistent and directed at multiple people who were present. 25 On the\u00a0other side of the balance it is acknowledged that there were mitigating features, in particular Harper's lack of previous convictions and the fact that he had recently suffered a\u00a0traumatic bereavement. There were also some mental health issues in respect of Kehoe. It is also acknowledged that it could be said that both offenders had shown remorse during the\u00a0course of the pre-sentence report. 26 No issue is taken before this court that it was appropriate for there to be full credit given for the early guilty pleas in this case. It is however submitted that the judge should have placed the\u00a0s.18 offence into either Category\u00a02A or at the least the\u00a0upper end of Category\u00a02B. There was a\u00a0weapon used. This indicated higher culpability. Further, it is submitted that it was a\u00a0prolonged and persistent assault. It is also submitted that Mr\u00a0Lunt was particularly vulnerable because he was on the\u00a0floor when he was kicked, having been struck by a\u00a0bottle. The\u00a0assault then continued with kicks and punches. Further, it is submitted that the\u00a0injuries of Mr\u00a0Lunt can properly be described as "grave". He received a\u00a0fractured skull, a\u00a0broken nose and a\u00a0fractured cheekbone. He required a\u00a0hospital stay of four days. It is also submitted that there was a further aggravating feature in that the victim was caused to move home as a\u00a0result of the attack. 27 It is noted that there were five offences of violence committed against five different victims by Harper over the\u00a0course of a\u00a0ten-minute incident. Kehoe committed four offences of violence against four victims. 28 In relation to dangerousness, it is submitted that both offenders were assessed as posing a\u00a0high risk of serious harm to the\u00a0public. In the case of Kehoe in particular it was necessary for the judge to address the\u00a0issue of dangerousness, because he had a relevant previous conviction for violence. He had, moreover, been responsible for the majority of the violence in this case. We are reminded that a sentencing judge has an\u00a0obligation under s.52(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020 ("the\u00a0Sentencing Code") to explain why they have come to the conclusion that an offender has not satisfied the\u00a0criteria for dangerousness. It is acknowledged that this court will be reluctant to interfere with findings in relation to dangerousness where a\u00a0judge has correctly applied the relevant principles: see R v Johnson [2006] EWCA Crim 2846, at para.11, in a\u00a0judgment given by the then President of the Queen's Bench Division. However, it submitted that in the\u00a0present case the\u00a0judge failed to address the\u00a0issue of dangerousness at all. Submissions on behalf of Kehoe 29 On behalf of Kehoe it is acknowledged by Mr\u00a0Duffy\u00a0that the total sentence passed was lenient, but it is submitted that it was not unduly so. In relation to the\u00a0first main ground of complaint, it is submitted that the offence was properly categorised as being of medium culpability and medium harm. The\u00a0weapon used, the\u00a0bottle, was not a\u00a0highly dangerous weapon so as to elevate the\u00a0culpability any higher than Category B. So far as harm is concerned, the\u00a0judge was entitled to regard the\u00a0harm as falling within Category\u00a03. The\u00a0victim sustained a\u00a0really serious injury, but once it was treated, it did not require further surgery. The\u00a0injuries were not permanent or irreversible. Mr\u00a0Duffy has also emphasised at the hearing before us that in his submission the\u00a0assault on Mr\u00a0Lunt should not be regarded as being persistent and prolonged. Although the\u00a0entire incident on the\u00a0night took about ten minutes, he points out that there were several separate incidents. Even the\u00a0incidents concerning Mr\u00a0Lunt himself were relatively short in duration and were separated by about a\u00a0minute. He accepts that there were repeated assaults on Mr\u00a0Lunt, at least two, but does not accept that that was prolonged and persistent conduct. 30 In relation to the\u00a0second ground of complaint, it is submitted that the judge in substance increased the notional sentence on Count\u00a02 up to six\u00a0years before taking account of the\u00a0guilty pleas from a\u00a0starting point in the\u00a0definitive guideline of four years. In those circumstances, it is submitted she was then entitled to say that the other sentences should be made concurrent. In relation to the issue of dangerousness, it is accepted that the judge should have addressed this, but it is submitted that if she had considered it she would have been unlikely to conclude that the offender Kehoe was dangerous. In any event, it is submitted that the finding of dangerousness ought not to be made by this court for the following reasons: (1) The offender's previous convictions were comparatively less serious and do not demonstrate a propensity for serious violence. At the hearing before us, Mr\u00a0Duffy has emphasised the\u00a0length of time which had elapsed since those earlier offences had taken place. He has also emphasised that in the\u00a012\u00a0months since the\u00a0offences took place and when sentence was passed Kehoe had not committed further offences. (2) The\u00a0references that were submitted demonstrated a\u00a0different more positive side to Kehoe's characters. (3) The\u00a0offender had expressed remorse. (4) The\u00a0conclusions in the\u00a0report by Professor Hope indicate that in her opinion the\u00a0defendant does not present as a\u00a0perpetually violent person and his actions on the night in question were probably as a\u00a0result of a\u00a0combination of his consumption of alcohol and his ADHD. 31 Finally, appearing before us, Mr\u00a0Duffy has submitted that even if this court were to conclude that Kehoe is dangerous, the\u00a0court nevertheless has a\u00a0discretion whether to impose any different type of sentence. In particular, he submits that an\u00a0extended sentence is not necessary in this case. Submissions for Harper 32 In relation to the\u00a0first ground of complaint, it is submitted by Mr\u00a0Sutton that on balance it was open to the\u00a0judge to conclude that Harper's conduct fell into Category B culpability. It is accepted that there was the\u00a0Category A factor present, that the\u00a0attack on Mr\u00a0Lunt could be considered to be prolonged or persistent. However, it is submitted that he was not vulnerable prior to the\u00a0overall attack taking place and that it would be double counting to include the fact that he was placed in a\u00a0vulnerable position while the\u00a0attack continued. Further, the\u00a0weapon used was not a\u00a0highly dangerous one. Harper's role was in any event a\u00a0lesser one in the\u00a0activity, as the\u00a0Solicitor General acknowledges. In relation to harm, it is submitted by Mr\u00a0Sutton that the injury to Mr\u00a0Lunt was not grave and that the\u00a0injury to his nose was not irreversible. 33 Furthermore, it is submitted there were significant mitigating factors in the\u00a0case of Harper: (1) The absence of previous convictions and particularly any convictions for violence. (2) His genuine remorse. (3) The\u00a0positive good character evidenced by references. (4) A\u00a0recent bereavement which had contributed to his acting in a\u00a0way that was completely out of character. 34 In relation to the\u00a0second main ground of complaint, it is accepted that Harper faced an\u00a0additional offence (Count 5) but it is not accepted that in the\u00a0overall circumstances this would have resulted in\u00a0any appreciable differences in the\u00a0respective sentences for the following reasons: (1) Count\u00a05 related to a\u00a0s.47 assault. (2) No issue is taken by the\u00a0Solicitor General that the offence was correctly placed into Category C3. (3) The\u00a0Solicitor General accepts that it was Kehoe who was responsible for the majority of the violence. (4) The\u00a0correct starting point was adopted by the\u00a0judge, namely a\u00a0starting point of a\u00a0medium Community Order with a\u00a0range in band B5 up to 26 weeks' custody. 35 In relation to the\u00a0third ground of complaint, it is accepted that the judge ought to have addressed the issue of dangerousness, but it is submitted that Harper does not meet the\u00a0criteria for such a\u00a0finding for the following reasons: (1) The\u00a0lack of previous convictions or any indication of having a propensity to use unlawful violence. (2) His positive good character. (3) His genuine remorse. (4) His acceptance of responsibility for his actions. (5) The\u00a0absence of any recurrence of any misconduct and particularly unlawful violence in the\u00a012\u00a0months since these offences. (6) The\u00a0fact that he was assessed as posing a\u00a0low risk of reoffending in the pre-sentence report. Our Assessment 36 We have reached the\u00a0conclusion that the\u00a0sentences passed in this troubling case were unduly lenient. We have also reached the\u00a0conclusion that in the\u00a0case of Kehoe a\u00a0finding should have been made that he is a\u00a0dangerous offender and an\u00a0extended sentence imposed on him in order to protect the\u00a0public. 37 We do not\u00a0accept the submission for the Solicitor General that consecutive sentences were required in this case. The\u00a0structure of the\u00a0sentence was a\u00a0matter for the judge, but having decided to make the\u00a0sentences concurrent, it was then necessary to have a\u00a0very substantial uplift in the\u00a0sentence passed for the lead offence. Even taking that offence by itself, we are persuaded by the\u00a0submissions for the Solicitor General that it was sufficiently serious that it needed to be placed in Category\u00a02A. In our view, the\u00a0harm caused to Mr\u00a0Lunt was indeed "grave". Further, the\u00a0culpability was high. Apart from the\u00a0other factors, this was in our view a\u00a0prolonged and persistent attack. That would have given a\u00a0starting point of seven\u00a0years' custody with a\u00a0suggested range of six to 10\u00a0years. Having regard to the\u00a0aggravating factors in this case, a\u00a0sentence at the top of that range was possible at least in the\u00a0case of Kehoe who had previous convictions for violence. An\u00a0uplift was then required to reflect the\u00a0fact that the other sentences were made concurrent. 38 In our judgment, the\u00a0custodial term after trial should have been one of 12\u00a0years in the\u00a0case of Kehoe and eight\u00a0years in the\u00a0case of Harper. After giving full credit for the guilty pleas, that should have led to a\u00a0custodial term of eight\u00a0years for Kehoe and five years and four months for Harper, but we are satisfied that in the\u00a0case of Kehoe there had also to be a\u00a0finding of dangerousness. This is in particular because he had previous convictions for violence, albeit nothing as serious as on this occasion. We have had regard to all of the\u00a0circumstances of the\u00a0case in accordance with s.308 of the Sentencing Code. We recognise that we then have a\u00a0discretion whether to impose an\u00a0extended sentence or even a\u00a0more serious sentence in the\u00a0light of that finding. In our judgment, an\u00a0extended sentence does need to be imposed in the\u00a0case of Kehoe. We consider that there should be an\u00a0extension period of four years. That makes a\u00a0total sentence in his case of 12 years, comprising a\u00a0custodial term of eight\u00a0years and an\u00a0extended licence period of four years. Conclusion 39 For the reasons we have given, we grant this application by the\u00a0Solicitor General to refer the\u00a0sentences to this court under s.36 of the 1988 Act. On that reference, we substitute the\u00a0following sentences for those imposed in the\u00a0Crown Court. In respect of Count\u00a02, that is the\u00a0s.18 offence, in the\u00a0case of Kehoe there will be an\u00a0extended sentence comprising a\u00a0custodial term of eight\u00a0years and an\u00a0extension period of four\u00a0years. In the\u00a0case of Harper, there will be a\u00a0determinate sentence of five years and four\u00a0months. We leave the\u00a0other sentences as they were, since they are concurrent to the\u00a0main sentence. __________<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

LORD JUSTICE SINGH: Introduction 1 This is an application on behalf of His Majesty’s Solicitor General for permission to refer two sentences which are regarded as being unduly lenient under s.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 («the 1988 Act»). 2 The principles to be applied on such an application are well established and have been summarised as follows: (1)…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[32183],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[33660,7621,33659,8348,9664],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-658858","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-32183","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-harper","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-kehoe","kji_keyword-sentence","kji_keyword-submitted","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nREX v JOSHUA ANTHONY KEHOE (AKA YATES) & Anor. - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"REX v JOSHUA ANTHONY KEHOE (AKA YATES) & Anor.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"LORD JUSTICE SINGH: Introduction 1 This is an application on behalf of His Majesty's Solicitor General for permission to refer two sentences which are regarded as being unduly lenient under s.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act"). 2 The principles to be applied on such an application are well established and have been summarised as follows: (1)...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"22 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\u044b\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\\\/\",\"name\":\"REX v JOSHUA ANTHONY KEHOE (AKA YATES) & Anor. - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T10:21:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"REX v JOSHUA ANTHONY KEHOE (AKA YATES) & Anor.\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"REX v JOSHUA ANTHONY KEHOE (AKA YATES) & Anor. - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"REX v JOSHUA ANTHONY KEHOE (AKA YATES) & Anor.","og_description":"LORD JUSTICE SINGH: Introduction 1 This is an application on behalf of His Majesty's Solicitor General for permission to refer two sentences which are regarded as being unduly lenient under s.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (\"the 1988 Act\"). 2 The principles to be applied on such an application are well established and have been summarised as follows: (1)...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"22 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\u044b"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\/","name":"REX v JOSHUA ANTHONY KEHOE (AKA YATES) & Anor. - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T10:21:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-joshua-anthony-kehoe-aka-yates-anor\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"REX v JOSHUA ANTHONY KEHOE (AKA YATES) & Anor."}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/658858","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=658858"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=658858"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=658858"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=658858"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=658858"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=658858"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=658858"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=658858"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}