Brown, R. v

Brown, R. v

The judge in Brown's case properly applied the statutory test for dangerousness and the extended sentence was appropriate, but the structuring of sentences required adjustment to comply with guidance. In Butterworth's case, the finding of dangerousness was not supported by the evidence, and the extended sentences...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Craig William Brown; Applicant/appellant: James Butterworth; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeals allowed in part
Legal Topics
Extended Sentences, Dangerous Offenders, Assessment of Dangerousness, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Law Sentencing Extended Sentences Dangerous Offenders Assessment of Dangerousness Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences Criminal Justice Act 2003

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig William Brown

Appellant

James Butterworth

Applicant/appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge properly applied the statutory test for dangerousness under section 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the structure and length of the extended and determinate sentences imposed were lawful and appropriate
  3. 3 Whether the extended sentences imposed were lawful under section 227 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Ratio Decidendi

The judge in Brown's case properly applied the statutory test for dangerousness and the extended sentence was appropriate, but the structuring of sentences required adjustment to comply with guidance. In Butterworth's case, the finding of dangerousness was not supported by the evidence, and the extended sentences were unlawful as the custodial terms were less than 12 months; thus, the extended sentences were quashed but the custodial sentences remained.

Court Disposition

appeals allowed in part

Orders

  • In Brown: original sentences as varied quashed; substituted 18 months for count 4 and 36 months extended sentence consecutive for count 1 (22 months custodial, 14 months extension).
  • In Butterworth: extended sentences quashed; custodial sentences for magistrates' court offences (8 months each, consecutive) and indictment offences left unaltered.