Attorney General's Reference Nos. 51, 52 and 53 of 2005

In an Attorney General reference for unduly lenient sentences, the proper sentence must reflect the full gravity of a concerted and prolonged attack on a defenceless victim, including kicking and stamping to the head, serious injury, and any associated robbery. Comparable sentencing authority provides useful guidance, but each case requires its own assessment.

Where a sentence is unduly lenient, the court may substitute a longer term. It must, however, allow for double jeopardy. It may also decline to interfere where the offender's lesser role and subsequent release make an increase unnecessary in the exercise of discretion.

The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer for review the sentences imposed on Cripps, Bowen and Holloway on 3 May 2005.

The three 18-year-old offenders had participated in a street attack on another young man. Cripps also committed robbery. The victim was repeatedly punched, kicked and stamped on, including on the head, and sustained serious facial, brain and spinal injuries. Cripps received three and a half years' detention for causing grievous bodily harm with intent; Holloway received three years; and Bowen received two and a half years.

The central issue was whether those sentences were unduly lenient and, if so, whether the court should increase them.

1. Leave was granted. The court held that the sentences imposed on Cripps and Holloway were unduly lenient. The attack was concerted, prolonged and vicious. The victim was defenceless and unconscious for part of it. The use of kicks and repeated stamps to the head, the serious injuries, and Cripps's robbery materially aggravated the offending.

2. Comparable authority indicated that attacks of this kind ordinarily require substantial custodial sentences, although sentencing remains fact-specific. For Cripps, even allowing for his age, good character, difficult background and guilty plea, the least proper total sentence was five years' detention. His sentence for causing grievous bodily harm with intent was therefore increased from three and a half years to four and a half years.

3. Holloway's sustained participation, including repeated kicks and stamps to the victim's head, required a sentence of at least four years' detention even after his guilty plea. His sentence was increased from three years to three and a half years.

4. In each increase the court made an allowance for double jeopardy, namely the additional punishment caused by increasing a sentence after it has been imposed.

5. Bowen's sentence was also below the level the court regarded as appropriate. However, his role was less extensive: he left before Cripps and Holloway and tried to persuade them to stop. He had also been released on home curfew. The court therefore exercised its discretion not to interfere, so his sentence remained unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney General's references under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was granted. In [2006] EWCA Crim 117, the court increased the sentences of Cripps and Holloway but left Bowen's sentence unchanged.

• Sentencing court: On 3 May 2005, it imposed terms of detention in a young offender institution on the three offenders. The court is not identified in the judgment.