Stapylton v R

Stapylton v R

The compensation order could not stand because there was insufficient evidence of loss at the time of sentencing, and the judge failed to consider whether the appellant had the means to pay such a large amount over an extended period.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ben Stapylton; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence (compensation Order)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; compensation order quashed.
Legal Topics
Compensation Orders, Dangerous Driving, Sentencing, Insurance and Subrogation
Criminal Law Compensation Orders Dangerous Driving Sentencing Insurance and Subrogation

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ben Stapylton

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence (compensation Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the compensation order made by the Crown Court was valid in light of the appellant's means and the evidence of loss
  2. 2 Whether compensation could be ordered to an insurance company under section 130 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000

Ratio Decidendi

The compensation order could not stand because there was insufficient evidence of loss at the time of sentencing, and the judge failed to consider whether the appellant had the means to pay such a large amount over an extended period.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; compensation order quashed.

Orders

  • The compensation order is quashed.