R v Lloyd

The case of R v Lloyd involves an appeal against sentence by the applicant who pleaded guilty to eleven counts of possessing child exploitation material. The applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on each count, imposed concurrently. The applicant remains in prison approximately six months beyond the date the judge declared him to be eligible for parole. The applicant has served more than half the duration of the three year terms. The applicant contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, which is one of the grounds for interference under the applicable law.

The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the statutory framework and the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the applicant had pleaded guilty to multiple counts of possessing child exploitation material and had served more than half of the three-year terms. The court considered the availability of an order of probation after the suspension of a sentence under section 92(1)(b) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, which was not available in this case. The court concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the applicant had served more than half of the three-year terms, and the availability of an order of probation was not an option.

The court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence imposed on counts 1 to 10 by deleting the orders that the applicant be eligible for parole on 16 July 2010 and instead that each sentence be suspended forthwith for an operational period of three years. The term of imprisonment imposed on count 11 was set aside and in lieu thereof the applicant was sentenced to two years’ probation during which the applicant should undergo a course or courses suitable to address any tendency to re-offend. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted.