Dawkins, R v
The sentencing judge correctly applied the provisions of sections 224 to 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. There was sufficient evidence of significant risk of serious harm to the public from further specified offences, and the presumption of dangerousness was not unreasonable to apply. The sentence of imprisonment for public protection was not manifestly excessive.
- Parties
- Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Alan Graham Dawkins
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 13 March 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Dangerous Offenders, Imprisonment for Public Protection, Assessment of Risk, Statutory Interpretation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Prosecutor
Alan Graham Dawkins
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) was manifestly excessive
- 2 Whether the sentencing judge correctly applied sections 224 to 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 regarding dangerous offenders
- 3 Whether the presumption of dangerousness under section 229(3) should have been disapplied
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge correctly applied the provisions of sections 224 to 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. There was sufficient evidence of significant risk of serious harm to the public from further specified offences, and the presumption of dangerousness was not unreasonable to apply. The sentence of imprisonment for public protection was not manifestly excessive.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal against sentence dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment