R v Dylan Davies
The appellant was not a persistent offender as the two offences arose from a single incident and he had only one previous caution; thus, the maximum sentence available at the time of the offence was a youth rehabilitation order, not custody. The original custodial sentence was unlawful and must be quashed.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Prosecutor: Rex; Appellant: Dylan Davies
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 October 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; sentence quashed and substituted
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing of Children and Young People, Persistent Offender Definition, Youth Rehabilitation Order, Detention and Training Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rex
Prosecutor
Dylan Davies
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant could properly be categorised as a 'persistent offender' for sentencing purposes given his record and the nature of the offences
- 2 What sentence should be substituted if the original sentence was unlawful
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant was not a persistent offender as the two offences arose from a single incident and he had only one previous caution; thus, the maximum sentence available at the time of the offence was a youth rehabilitation order, not custody. The original custodial sentence was unlawful and must be quashed.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; sentence quashed and substituted
Orders
- Original sentence of 24 months' detention in a young offender institution quashed
- Substituted sentence of 5 months in a young offender institution, concurrent on each count
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment