R v Ibbetson

In the case of R v Ibbetson, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to multiple counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception and two counts of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception, appeals against her sentence. The applicant, who was sentenced to two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment with a release after ten months, argues that the sentence is manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge did not properly consider her mental health conditions. The applicant also raises issues regarding the impact of her incarceration on her daughter and the effect of COVID-19 on her in custody. Additionally, she contends that she was prejudiced by a late change in advice from her barrister as to the likely sentence.

The court was required to decide whether to accept new evidence from the applicant concerning her mental health conditions, determine if that material was available at the time of sentence, and assess whether it would have materially affected the sentence imposed. The court also had to consider whether the decisions relied upon at first instance are distinguishable from the applicant’s case and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the applicant's mental health conditions were taken into account at the time of sentencing, and that the new evidence would not have materially affected the sentence imposed. The court also held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the applicant's other contentions did not warrant interference with the sentence. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused, and the application to adduce further evidence was also refused.