R v X & Ors

When the Attorney General invokes the statutory power to refer an allegedly unduly lenient sentence, the resulting proceedings are legal proceedings for which he is answerable to the court as a party. There is no general duty to police press accuracy. However, if he comments publicly on the gravity of the offending while professing detailed knowledge of the facts, he should ensure that his statements are fair and accurate and correct widespread misreporting of which he is aware. The power under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is vested in the Attorney General, not the government, and must be exercised independently. The CPS should correct high-profile factual inaccuracies through a clear, public and properly contextualised correction.

This follow-on judgment arose after the Attorney General referred sentences imposed on X, Y and Z by the Crown Court at Southampton under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The court had already given its main judgment in the References, [2026] EWCA Crim 845, and stated that this judgment was separate from the merits and outcome of those References.

The court considered inaccurate CPS publicity, resulting media misreporting and attacks on the sentencing judge, together with public statements made by the Attorney General while the proceedings were pending. The central issues were the responsibilities arising from those communications, the CPS's duty to correct serious factual errors, and the constitutional independence of the Attorney General's statutory power.

The court did not revisit the merits of the sentence references. It addressed the administration of justice and marked its concerns about the conduct of the CPS and the Attorney General.

1. Accountability in proceedings. Once applications for permission to refer the sentences under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 had been lodged, the Attorney General became a party to legal proceedings and was answerable to the court for their conduct like any other party. The Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 41.3, required the application to explain why the sentencing appeared unduly lenient and to outline the supporting arguments. The Attorney General was not required to make public statements, and it was generally wise not to comment on pending proceedings.
2. Accuracy of public statements. There was no general duty to patrol the accuracy of press reporting. However, the Attorney General occupied a particular position because he had brought the References and was exercising a statutory power in the public interest. Having chosen to comment publicly on the gravity of the offending and having professed detailed knowledge of the facts, he should have ensured that his communications were fair and accurate and corrected widespread factual inaccuracies of which he was aware. In the circumstances, public correction was required to protect the administration of justice, the safety of victims and offenders, and public understanding of the justice system.
3. Judicial independence. The court considered that the Attorney General should have addressed the personal vilification of the sentencing judge once he knew of it. The power to refer under section 36 was vested in the Attorney General, not the government, and had to be exercised independently rather than in pursuit of government policy or agenda.
4. CPS communications. The original press release contained serious factual errors and the delay in correcting them was unacceptable. Given the profile of the case, a simple corrected re-release bearing the original date was inadequate. A standalone correction, linked to the sentencing remarks and properly contextualised, was appropriate. The court accepted the DPP's apologies and assurances, marked its concerns, and trusted that such errors would not recur.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): This follow-on judgment, [2026] EWCA Crim 913 , addressed administration-of-justice concerns and was expressly separate from the merits and outcome of the References.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court had given its main judgment in the three References, [2026] EWCA Crim 845 .
3. Crown Court at Southampton: His Honour Judge Rowland sentenced X, Y and Z on 21 May 2026. The Attorney General subsequently made the References under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.