Folkes, R v [2006] EWCA Crim 287 (19 January 2006)
The seriousness of the robbery offence did not justify a life sentence under section 225(2) Criminal Justice Act 2003; the appropriate sentence was imprisonment for public protection under section 225(3) due to the significant risk of serious harm to the public.
- Citation
- [2006] EWCA Crim 287
- Parties
- Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Andre Folkes
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 19 January 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence, Renewed Before the Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Robbery, Sentencing, Life Imprisonment, Imprisonment for Public Protection, Dangerous Offenders, Mental Health and Sentencing
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Prosecution
Andre Folkes
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence, Renewed Before the Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of life imprisonment under section 225(2) Criminal Justice Act 2003 was justified
- 2 Whether the seriousness of the offence justified a life sentence or a sentence of imprisonment for public protection
Ratio Decidendi
The seriousness of the robbery offence did not justify a life sentence under section 225(2) Criminal Justice Act 2003; the appropriate sentence was imprisonment for public protection under section 225(3) due to the significant risk of serious harm to the public.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted, limited to the question of sentence type
- Life sentence set aside
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