Finnerty, R v

Finnerty, R v

The sentencing judge was not justified in finding a significant risk of serious harm based on psychiatric and youth offending team evidence; therefore, an extended sentence was not warranted. The custodial term imposed was also excessive given the mitigating circumstances, including the appellant's age, remorse, and progress in detention.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Daniel Mark Finnerty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; sentence on count 2 quashed and substituted.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Arson, Mental Health Orders, Youth Offenders
Criminal Law Sentencing Arson Mental Health Orders Youth Offenders

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Daniel Mark Finnerty

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm justifying an extended sentence
  2. 2 Whether the custodial term imposed was manifestly excessive
  3. 3 Availability of hospital orders under Mental Health Act 1983

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was not justified in finding a significant risk of serious harm based on psychiatric and youth offending team evidence; therefore, an extended sentence was not warranted. The custodial term imposed was also excessive given the mitigating circumstances, including the appellant's age, remorse, and progress in detention.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; sentence on count 2 quashed and substituted.

Orders

  • Sentence of 7 years extended detention quashed on count 2
  • Concurrent term of 3.5 years substituted on count 2