The sentences imposed on Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce have
been referred to the Attorney General for being ‘unduly lenient’.
The former cabinet minister and his ex-wife were sentenced
to eight months’ imprisonment on 11th March for perverting the
course of justice, after Pryce accepted Huhne’s speeding points in 2003. For more information on the sentences given, see this article.
The Conservative MP David Burrowes has referred the sentences
to the Government’s senior law officer, the Attorney General, for being ‘unduly
lenient’. In a letter to the Attorney General the MP argues that the sentences
do not reflect the ‘seriousness of the offence and the need for it to be
exemplary and provide deterrence’.
The Attorney General will now have to decide whether to
apply to the Court of Appeal for leave (permission) to appeal the sentences for
being unduly lenient. While there are no sentencing guidelines for perverting
the course of justice, the Attorney General can look at the sentences given in
other cases to help him decide whether or not he believes the sentences to be
unduly lenient. If the Attorney General does decide to apply to the Court of
Appeal, and it agrees to review the sentences, it could increase their length. We
will now have to wait to see whether the Attorney General will apply to have
the sentences reviewed.
The Law on Appealing
Unduly Lenient Sentences
Sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 allow
the Attorney General to refer certain sentences to the Court of Appeal
(Criminal Division) if he or she thinks a sentence is ‘unduly lenient’. The
Attorney General must obtain the leave of the Court of Appeal to make a
reference to it. Leave must be applied for within 28 days of the sentence being
passed. If the Court of Appeal grants leave it will then review then sentence.
It can then pass a sentence that it regards as appropriate, extending it if
necessary.
What do you think of the length of the sentences?
No comments:
Post a Comment