We haven't been able to take payment
You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Update payment details
Act now to keep your subscription
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Update payment details
Your subscription is due to terminate
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account, otherwise your subscription will terminate.
Update payment details

Accessibility Links

Skip to content
The Times & The Sunday Times
The Times & The Sunday Times
  • Subscribe
Subscribe

New material relevant

The Times
The Times

Court of Appeal, Criminal Division

Published April 1, 2011

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 74 of 2010); Regina v Pearson

In determining sentence, following a conclusion that the original sentence had been unduly lenient, the Court of Appeal could take into account new material not before the judge.

Advertisement

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (Lord Justice Hooper, Mr Justice Openshaw and Mrs Justice Macur) so held on February 16, 2011, when substituting a four-year prison sentence for a two-year concurrent suspended sentence passed on Donald Pearson on October 29, 2010, at Wolverhampton Crown Court (Judge Parker, QC) for three counts of indecent assault.

LORD JUSTICE HOOPER doubting Attorney General’s Reference (No 19 of 2005); Regina v Bowden (The Times May 3, 2006) considered that, once a conclusion had been reached that the original sentence had been unduly lenient, new material, whether favourable or adverse to the defendant, could be taken into account when determining a fresh sentence.