Attorney General's Office

Sentences of Dobson and Norris not to be referred to Court of Appeal

After careful review, the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP, has decided not to refer the sentences of Gary Dobson and David Norris to the Court of Appeal as possibly unduly lenient.

Explaining the decision, Mr Grieve said:

"This was a despicable and appalling crime. Justice was long delayed and I can fully understand why some people are unhappy that the minimum terms handed down were not longer.

"However, having considered the sentences carefully I have come to the conclusion that the minimum terms are within the appropriate range of sentences, bearing in mind the offenders' ages at the time of the crime, and therefore I have decided not to refer them to the Court of Appeal.

"It is perhaps worth emphasising that the terms are the minimum periods that will actually be served. Dobson and Norris will not be released unless and until the Parole Board considers they do not pose a risk."

ends

Media enquiries: AGO press office 020 7271 2440 / 2484 / 2465

Notes to editors

1. Gary Dobson and David Norris were sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's Pleasure with minimum terms of 15 years and two months and 14 years and three months respectively. Dobson was 17 and Norris was 16 years old at the time of the murder.

2. The law officers have the power, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to refer to the Court of Appeal a sentence passed in the Crown Court for review which appears to them to be an unduly lenient sentence. This power only applies to sentences imposed for certain serious offences. If the sentence is for an offence which falls within the scheme, the power to refer is subject to a strict 28 day time limit from the date that the sentence was passed.

3. The term "unduly lenient" means more than just lenient, the Court of Appeal has said that a sentence is unduly lenient where it "falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate". The sentence must not just be lenient, but must be unduly lenient - not just low, but unreasonably low.

4. The Court of Appeal will not change the sentence unless it is significantly below what the judge should have passed. The Attorney General has to bear this in mind when deciding whether or not to refer a case to the Court.

5. Where the Court does consider that a sentence was unduly lenient, they may not necessarily replace the sentence with that which they considered should have been passed at first instance. This is because the Court may take into account the fact that the offender has been put through the sentencing process a second time and may give a discount for this element of "double jeopardy".

6. Decisions on whether or not to refer cases are taken only after very careful consideration of the facts and the circumstances of the case and the relevant sentencing law and guidelines.