R v Erik Feld

R v Erik Feld

The sentencing judge applied the correct legal test for mitigation due to mental disorder, properly considered the psychiatric evidence, and was entitled to find that the aggravating factors outweighed the limited mitigation. The uplift in the minimum term was not wrong in principle or law, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rex; Applicant: Erik Feld
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
renewed application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Murder, Sentencing, Mental Disorder as Mitigation, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors, Appeals
Criminal Law Murder Sentencing Mental Disorder as Mitigation Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Appeals

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

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

Erik Feld

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge properly applied statutory mitigation for mental disorder under paragraph 10(c) of Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge properly considered the psychiatric evidence of Dr Attard
  3. 3 Whether the aggravating factors were correctly weighed and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge applied the correct legal test for mitigation due to mental disorder, properly considered the psychiatric evidence, and was entitled to find that the aggravating factors outweighed the limited mitigation. The uplift in the minimum term was not wrong in principle or law, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

renewed application for permission to appeal refused