Williams, R v

Williams, R v

The court held that the power under s.116 PCC(S)A 2000 to order recall and consecutive sentences was preserved by transitional provisions and not repealed by the CJIA 2008 amendments. The overall sentence was excessive as a matter of totality and should be reduced, with credit for time spent on remand.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: D’Roy Charles Williams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Recall to Prison, Consecutive Sentences, Transitional Provisions, Money Laundering, Drug Offences

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

D’Roy Charles Williams

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the court had power under s.116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to order recall and consecutive sentencing given legislative amendments
  2. 2 Whether the overall sentence imposed was excessive in light of the guilty plea and totality principle
  3. 3 Whether proper credit was given for time spent on remand

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the power under s.116 PCC(S)A 2000 to order recall and consecutive sentences was preserved by transitional provisions and not repealed by the CJIA 2008 amendments. The overall sentence was excessive as a matter of totality and should be reduced, with credit for time spent on remand.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentence on count 2 (acquiring criminal property) reduced from 2 years 9 months to 2 years imprisonment
  • Overall sentence reduced to 2 years and 6 months imprisonment