Sentence extended...twice?

[GetOvaIt2]

Hi, I'm interested to hear from anyone legal

An acquaintance was jailed for a serious criminal offence by a crown court judge following a jury trial last year. I'm not in close contact but from what I understand the sentence was given a few weeks after conviction and then extended by the crown court a few weeks later (an extra x years), possibly on appeal? The sentence was then extended AGAIN by ANOTHER X years by the Solicitor General a few weeks after that.

Can anyone explain why this would have happened? Are sentences often extended on appeal - who would have suggested that? And why would it have been flagged by the solicitor general? Does it meant the initial judge was too lenient (or maybe he didn't agree with the jury ruling?)

I know nothing about how this stuff works and am trying to get my head around it.

Thanks

The solicitor General, the deputy to the Attorney General, doesn't extend the sentence but has the power to refer an unduly lenient sentence to the court of appeal.

Have a look here.

www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review

A jury does not pass sentence. A jury only decides if someone is innocent or guilty. The presiding judge(s) then pass sentence.

It's the case with anyone appealing their sentence that the sentence can possibly be extended as well as possibly reduced. This is the chance they take.

If someone has got a custodial sentence in the UK, they have either done something very bad or have numerous previous convictions. To then have it extended twice is not good TBH.

It sounds like the first change to the sentence was probably under the 56-day slip rule. This may be because the original sentence was unlawful or because new information came to light.

Neither the Attorney General nor the Solicitor General has any powers to alter sentences handed down by the courts. However, for some offences the Attorney General can refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal if they consider that the original sentence is unduly lenient. If the Court of Appeal agrees that the sentence is too low, they will increase it.

The jury do not set the sentence, nor do they have any say in it. The judge decides the sentence. And no-one cares whether the judge agreed with the jury's verdict. All that matters is that the judge should impose an appropriate sentence within the sentencing guidelines for the offence concerned.

I don't know of any statistics about how often the slip rule is used, but on average 1-2 cases per week are referred to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the sentence is unduly lenient.

Thanks everyone that's very interesting. Could the original "lenient" sentence have been given to take medical issues into account? Is that something that is considered when sentencing?

Thank you for taking the time to answer!