George v Birtwistle

George was charged with and convicted of a series of fraud offences involving credit vouchers and keycards, in two separate groups of charges. The second group of charges was committed while he was on bail for the first group. George appealed his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive and a substantial miscarriage of justice compared to his co-accused. The appeal hinged on the disparity in sentencing, the principles of general and personal deterrence, and whether the trial judge made an error in sentencing.

The court examined the trial judge's sentencing remarks and found no evidence of an error in principle or an unsustainable conclusion on the evidence. The trial judge had considered the need for deterrence, the seriousness of the offences, and the disparity with the co-accused's sentence. The court held that the sentence was within the range of reasonable responses and did not amount to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence upheld.