Skip to main content

Your browser is out of date, and unable to use many of the features of this website

Please upgrade your browser.


This website requires cookies. Your browser currently has cookies disabled.

Information related to Project Sean

FOI reference - FOI-28

Date - 26 July 2022


I refer to the case of Stuart Garner, sentenced at Derby Crown Court on 31 March 2022 for the offence of breaching ERI rules and my request for information is as follows.

  1. Were requests to review the sentence in this case submitted under the ULS referral scheme forwarded to you?
  2. How many requests were submitted for the sentence to be reviewed in the above case?
  3. Was the case referred for review?
  4. If the case was not referred what was the reason?
  5. If the determination was that case was not eligible for referral could you please provide a detailed explanation as to why the case was determined as such?


I can confirm that we hold information falling within scope of your request.

Information we are able to supply

  1. Some of the victims of the crimes in this case were concerned about the sentence which had been passed, and TPR considered whether it could seek a review of the sentence. There were no formal requests that TPR seek a review of the sentence since the review mechanism did not apply to this sentence (see point 5 below) and the communications with the victims were not put as requests under the scheme to which you refer. TPR did not seek a review of the sentence; there was no power to review it; and it was final.
  2. See point 1 above.
  3. No.
  4. See point 5 below.
  5. In certain circumstances, TPR may refer a case to the Attorney General for them to consider whether to ask the Court of Appeal to look again at the sentence. However, this only applies to particular types of offences, which are described in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Reviews of Sentencing) Order 2006. For example, certain types of sexual offences, burglary and serious or complex fraud. This prosecution, for offences under section 40(5) of the Pensions Act 1995, did not fall within those categories. Therefore, the sentence passed in the Crown Court was final and there was no option for TPR to ask for it to be reviewed.