Matthews, R v

Matthews, R v

The sentencing judge properly considered all relevant factors and applied the correct legal principles. The sentence of three years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness, persistence, and effect of the applicant's conduct in perverting the course of justice.

Parties
Applicant: David Peter Matthews; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
Perverting the Course of Justice, Sentencing, Health and Safety Offences, Manslaughter
Criminal Law Perverting the Course of Justice Sentencing Health and Safety Offences Manslaughter

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Peter Matthews

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for perverting the course of justice was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge gave adequate weight to mitigating factors
  3. 3 Whether principles from Tunney [2007] Cr App R(S) 565 were properly applied

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge properly considered all relevant factors and applied the correct legal principles. The sentence of three years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness, persistence, and effect of the applicant's conduct in perverting the course of justice.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal against sentence refused.