Hall v R

Hall v R

Imprisonment did not inevitably breach Article 2 or 3 ECHR as adequate care could be provided in prison; however, the appellant's exceptional medical condition and subsequent deterioration justified a further reduction of sentence as an exceptional application of mercy.

Parties
Appellant: Daniel Patrick Roque Hall; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Article 2 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Mitigation, Serious Crime Prevention Order
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Sentencing Article 2 ECHR Article 3 ECHR Mitigation Serious Crime Prevention Order

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

Parties

Daniel Patrick Roque Hall

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether imprisonment would breach Article 2 or 3 ECHR due to appellant's medical condition
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the appellant's condition

Ratio Decidendi

Imprisonment did not inevitably breach Article 2 or 3 ECHR as adequate care could be provided in prison; however, the appellant's exceptional medical condition and subsequent deterioration justified a further reduction of sentence as an exceptional application of mercy.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentence reduced to 18 months' imprisonment
  • Serious Crime Prevention Order imposed for 3 years: surrender of both passports, prohibition on applying for travel documents, prohibition on leaving the UK