202400910 A1 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1406

Mr Justice Choudhury:

An anonymity order has been made in this case. We are satisfied that the risk of harm to the Appellant if he was identified necessitates a derogation from the important principle of open justice, and we order that he remain anonymous. Accordingly, as stated above, pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, nothing may be included in any report of these proceedings which names or may otherwise lead members of the public to identify the Appellant, who must be referred to by the randomly chosen letters CDA. Consistently with that order, we shall not in this open judgment identify the court in which, or the judge by whom, CDA was sentenced.

The Appellant pleaded guilty to serious offences. At a subsequent sentencing hearing he made submissions on a number of points including the appropriate starting points, personal mitigation and totality. The Judge imposed a total custodial term of several years.

With the leave of the Single Judge, the Appellant appealed to this court, submitting that the custodial term was manifestly excessive on grounds relating to the starting points, totality and the weight given by the sentencing judge to the personal mitigation in the case.

Having considered those submissions and for reasons fully set out in the closed judgment in the case, we were persuaded that the total custodial term was manifestly excessive. We therefore allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence on one count and substituted a lower sentence.