Pedley & Ors v R

Pedley & Ors v R

The 'significant risk' test under section 225 Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not require a numerical probability or a 'more likely than not' standard; it is a qualitative assessment for the sentencing judge, balancing probability and gravity of harm. The test is compatible with Articles 3 and 5(1) ECHR. The Court of Appeal cannot re-hear a concluded appeal absent procedural nullity. Application of the test to the individual cases: Pedley's IPP sentence was justified; Martin's was not, as the risk of serious psychological harm was not significant; Hamadi's application to re-list was refused.

Parties
Appellant: Dean Pedley; Appellant: Lee Martin; Appellant: Zeeyad Hamadi; Respondent: The Queen; Intervener: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Pedley's application for leave to appeal refused; Martin's appeal allowed and IPP quashed; Hamadi's application to re-list refused.
Legal Topics
Significant Risk Test, Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp), European Convention on Human Rights Compatibility, Sentencing Guidelines, Dangerous Offenders
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Significant Risk Test Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp) European Convention on Human Rights Compatibility Sentencing Guidelines Dangerous 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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dean Pedley

Appellant

Lee Martin

Appellant

Zeeyad Hamadi

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Secretary of State for Justice

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of the 'significant risk' test under section 225 Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Compatibility of IPP sentences with Articles 3 and 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether concluded appeals can be re-heard in the Court of Appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The 'significant risk' test under section 225 Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not require a numerical probability or a 'more likely than not' standard; it is a qualitative assessment for the sentencing judge, balancing probability and gravity of harm. The test is compatible with Articles 3 and 5(1) ECHR. The Court of Appeal cannot re-hear a concluded appeal absent procedural nullity. Application of the test to the individual cases: Pedley's IPP sentence was justified; Martin's was not, as the risk of serious psychological harm was not significant; Hamadi's application to re-list was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Pedley's application for leave to appeal refused; Martin's appeal allowed and IPP quashed; Hamadi's application to re-list refused.

Orders

  • Martin: IPP sentence quashed; three years' imprisonment substituted on specified counts, concurrent sentences on others, time in custody to count.
  • Sexual Offences Prevention Order made against Martin, indefinite duration, with specified prohibitions.