Cross, R v

Cross, R v

The offence, though grave, did not fall within the small category of section 18 offences where a life sentence is appropriate, particularly as it involved a single kick and was not premeditated. The sentence of life imprisonment was wrong in principle and should be replaced with imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of 5 years.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Adam Stuart Cross
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence After Conviction
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Grievous Bodily Harm, Life Imprisonment, Imprisonment for Public Protection
Criminal Law Sentencing Grievous Bodily Harm Life Imprisonment Imprisonment for Public Protection

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Adam Stuart Cross

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence After Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the imposition of a discretionary life sentence was appropriate for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent
  2. 2 Whether the minimum term set was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The offence, though grave, did not fall within the small category of section 18 offences where a life sentence is appropriate, particularly as it involved a single kick and was not premeditated. The sentence of life imprisonment was wrong in principle and should be replaced with imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of 5 years.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 6 years quashed
  • Substituted with imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of 5 years