Barclay, R. v [2021] EWCA Crim 1675 (29 October 2021)

Barclay, R. v [2021] EWCA Crim 1675 (29 October 2021)

The sentencing judge applied the correct legal test for exceptional circumstances under section 109 PCC(S)A 2000, properly evaluated the applicant's history and psychiatric evidence, and was entitled to conclude the applicant posed a significant risk to the public. The delay in applying for leave to appeal was not justified. No grounds for appeal are made out.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Crim 1675
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: David Barclay
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
applications refused
Legal Topics
Automatic Life Sentence, Exceptional Circumstances, Risk to Public, Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal
Criminal Law Automatic Life Sentence Exceptional Circumstances Risk to Public Extension of Time Leave to Appeal

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

David Barclay

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the sentencing judge apply the correct test under section 109 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000?
  2. 2 Was there a significant risk to the public justifying the automatic life sentence?
  3. 3 Were there exceptional circumstances to avoid the mandatory life sentence?

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge applied the correct legal test for exceptional circumstances under section 109 PCC(S)A 2000, properly evaluated the applicant's history and psychiatric evidence, and was entitled to conclude the applicant posed a significant risk to the public. The delay in applying for leave to appeal was not justified. No grounds for appeal are made out.

Court Disposition

applications refused