R v Colin Stephen Nourse

R v Colin Stephen Nourse

The extended sentence was not justified given the appellant's remorse, lack of violent history, low risk of re-offending, and the judge's own recognition that risk would not persist long-term. The deprivation order was disproportionate given the significant financial penalty in addition to a lengthy prison sentence.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Appellant: Colin Stephen Nourse
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Dangerousness Assessment, Deprivation Order, Firearms Offences
Criminal Law Sentencing Dangerousness Assessment Deprivation Order Firearms Offences

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Colin Stephen Nourse

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the imposition of an extended sentence was justified
  2. 2 Whether the deprivation order for the Mercedes was proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The extended sentence was not justified given the appellant's remorse, lack of violent history, low risk of re-offending, and the judge's own recognition that risk would not persist long-term. The deprivation order was disproportionate given the significant financial penalty in addition to a lengthy prison sentence.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Extended sentence quashed and replaced with determinate sentence of 14 years' imprisonment.
  • Deprivation order for Mercedes quashed.