Sixty criminals had their sentences increased last year after the Court of Appeal ruled their original punishment was "unduly lenient".
They included Matthias Dawson, who launched a sustained and violent attack on his pregnant ex-partner, and three men who sexually assaulted women during burglaries in homes they were entitled to regard as safe havens.
Attorney General Dominic Grieve referred 77 criminals to more senior judges in 2010 to seek tougher sentences than those imposed at crown court. The Court of Appeal ruled that 65 of them had been let off too lightly and 60 had their sentences increased, figures released by the Attorney General's Office showed.
Dawson, of Lewisham, south-east London, launched the attack on his 20-year-old former partner, who was in the early stages of pregnancy with his child, during a row outside a London hospital.
In September last year, the Court of Appeal quashed his original sentence of 12 months suspended for two years and ordered him to serve four years in jail.
Mr Grieve said: "I believe that the unduly lenient sentence scheme plays an important role in maintaining public confidence in sentencing as a vital tool in the criminal justice system, as well as being an important part of our role as guardians of the public interest. It is the only means by which anyone - especially victims or their families - can have an apparently unduly lenient sentence examined."
Lord Justice Thomas, the deputy head of criminal justice, said the statistics showed that the number of sentenced considered unduly lenient remained low.
He said: "In 2010 the sentences of just 60 offenders were increased because the Court of Appeal found them to be unduly lenient. Figures from the Ministry of Justice tell us that, in that year, around 97,700 cases were received for trial in the crown court and that some 100,100 trial cases were disposed of and 174,400 defendants were dealt with.
"Clearly, the number of cases referred through the important powers of the Attorney and Solicitor General is a tiny minority.
"It is important that the power to refer these cases exists. It provides an opportunity for certain sentences to be reviewed and the Court of Appeal can give guidance to judges for future cases where similar issues arise."