Cummins, R v

Cummins, R v

The sentencing judge was entitled to make factual findings consistent with the jury's verdicts and not bound to accept the appellant's account; the credit for guilty plea was correctly applied; the finding of dangerousness and imposition of an extended sentence were justified based on the evidence and reports.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Daniel Marcus Cummins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Robbery, Unlawful Wounding, Dangerous Offender, Sentencing Guidelines, Credit for Guilty Plea
Criminal Law Robbery Unlawful Wounding Dangerous Offender Sentencing Guidelines Credit for Guilty Plea

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

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Daniel Marcus Cummins

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in sentencing on a factual basis inconsistent with jury verdicts
  2. 2 Whether the judge should have allowed greater credit for guilty pleas
  3. 3 Whether the judge was wrong to find the appellant a dangerous offender and impose an extended sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to make factual findings consistent with the jury's verdicts and not bound to accept the appellant's account; the credit for guilty plea was correctly applied; the finding of dangerousness and imposition of an extended sentence were justified based on the evidence and reports.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Sentence of 18 years' imprisonment for robbery and unlawful wounding upheld
  • Concurrent sentence of three years' imprisonment for unlawful wounding upheld