King, R. v

King, R. v

The judge correctly applied the law in determining the factual basis for sentencing by making his own findings to the criminal standard where more than one interpretation of the jury's verdict was possible. The findings were supported by evidence, and the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for manslaughter involving use of a knife. There was no basis for appellate interference.

Parties
Appellant: Dwayne King; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence After Conviction for Manslaughter
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Manslaughter, Factual Basis for Sentencing, Appeals Against Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Manslaughter Factual Basis for Sentencing Appeals Against Sentence

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 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dwayne King

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence After Conviction for Manslaughter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct approach for a judge to determine the factual basis for sentencing after a trial when multiple versions of events are consistent with the jury's verdict?
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in making findings of fact against the appellant contrary to the weight of evidence or proper direction.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge correctly applied the law in determining the factual basis for sentencing by making his own findings to the criminal standard where more than one interpretation of the jury's verdict was possible. The findings were supported by evidence, and the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for manslaughter involving use of a knife. There was no basis for appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed