ISOLAS LLP Partner, the Hon. Neil F Costa, acted for Mr Karl Danino in his partly successful appeal against sentence before the Court of Appeal for Gibraltar (the ‘Court’). Neil Costa appeared together with Jeevan Daswani of Attias & Levy who instructed ISOLAS LLP.
In a judgment delivered on 13 July 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and reduced the Appellant’s overall sentence from eight and a half years’ imprisonment to seven and a half years. The original sentence comprised two elements: 8 years 1 month for an offence of aggravated burglary and a 20-week consecutive sentence for an offence of threats to kill. The judgment, Danino v Rex [2026] GCA 009, was given by Sir Patrick Elias JA with Sir Nicholas Underhill JA and Sir Nigel Davis P agreeing.
Background to the appeal
The appeal’s principal focus was the sentence for aggravated burglary. The appeal advanced four principal grounds concerning errors in: (a) the categorisation of the aggravated burglary offence; (b) the treatment of the aggravating and mitigating factors; (c) the reduction afforded for the guilty plea; and (d) the application of the totality principle. The appeal raised questions concerning the relevance of a mental disorder to an offender’s culpability and the correct approach to psychological and emotional harm described in victim personal statements.
Aggravating and mitigating factors
The appeal succeeded in relation to the treatment of the aggravating and mitigating factors. The Court concluded that there had been a material degree of double counting as follows:
(a) in treating the fact that the burglary was of a dwelling house as an aggravating factor. The Court held that the harm suffered by the victims in having their privacy and security infringed had already been taken into account when assessing the emotional harm both to the victim and, more especially, to her parents;
(b) in treating the fact that the offence occurred shortly after 8.00 pm as an aggravating factor. In so far as the timing of the offence may have aggravated the experience for the victims, this had already been taken into account when assessing the victims’ emotional and psychological harm; and
(c) in treating the use of drink and drugs as an aggravating factor. The taking of illicit substances was an important feature in evaluating the impact of the Appellant’s mental disorder on his offending. It should not have been given weight again.
In considering the relevant matters in the round, Sir Patrick Elias concluded that: ‘…the aggravating and mitigating factors are properly to be viewed as cancelling each other out.’ The appropriate sentence for aggravated burglary, before the application of the reduction for the guilty plea, was, therefore, eight years rather than nine years.
The Court also considered fresh evidence concerning the Appellant’s conduct while in custody. The evidence demonstrated that the Appellant had behaved constructively in prison, had participated voluntarily in drug testing with negative results, and had entered into a compact committing himself to good behaviour. The Court regarded those matters as lending support to the genuineness of the Appellant’s remorse and to the efforts he had made to address his longstanding difficulties.
The Court’s decision
After applying the 10% reduction for the guilty plea and adding the consecutive sentence imposed for the offence of threats to kill, the Court imposed an overall sentence of seven years and seven months. The Court rounded that term down to seven and a half years partly in recognition of the Appellant’s constructive conduct in custody.
