R v Amy Louise Byrne
[2024] EWCA Crim 801
R v Kelly Jean Bennett
7 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 739
Court of Appeal
A woman was sentenced to 4 years in prison for selling sick puppies through lies. She appealed, arguing the sentence was too long and unfair compared to someone else's, but the court said it was fair given the serious crimes and that the other person's sentence wasn't unduly lenient.
Key Facts
- •Kelly Jean Bennett pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation (Fraud Act 2006, section 2) and three animal welfare offences (Animal Welfare Act 2006, sections 4 and 9).
- •The fraud involved selling diseased puppies through false advertisements, causing significant financial and emotional harm to numerous victims (31 dogs needed treatment, 9 died).
- •Bennett lived a lavish lifestyle funded by the fraud, showing a "blithe disinterest" in the suffering of animals and customers.
- •Bennett had no prior convictions but showed a lack of remorse and continued selling dogs even while imprisoned.
- •Co-defendant Stacey Hayward received a longer sentence despite having mitigating factors, prompting the appeal.
- •The judge considered the impact of imprisonment on Bennett's three children, including the youngest who might need care if the mother was incarcerated.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for fraud, considering culpability and harm caused.
Fraud Act 2006 and Sentencing Guidelines
Principle of totality in sentencing multiple offences.
Sentencing principles
Consideration of Article 8 rights (right to respect for family life) in sentencing, particularly concerning the impact on children.
R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214
Disparity in sentencing between co-defendants can only be grounds for appeal if the difference is unjustified, not caused by differences in offending or circumstances.
R v Saliuka [2014] EWCA Crim 1907; R v Dyer [2014] EWCA Crim 2114; R v Hussain (Khalid) [2018] EWCA Crim 290
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found the sentence (4 years and 1 month) just and proportionate, considering the seriousness of the fraud and animal welfare offences, the lack of remorse, and the impact on victims. The disparity argument failed as differences between Bennett's and Hayward's sentences were justified by differences in the offences and mitigating circumstances.