F, R. v

F, R. v

The sentence of 30 months' detention is not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. However, the indefinite notification requirement resulting from the sentence is disproportionately harsh for a juvenile offender, as it precludes an opportunity for review, but the court is not compelled to reduce the sentence solely to comply with Article 8.

Parties
Appellant: F; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Following Criminal Cases Review Commission Reference
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing of Juveniles, Notification Requirements, Proportionality Under Article 8 ECHR
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Sentencing of Juveniles Notification Requirements Proportionality Under Article 8 ECHR

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Following Criminal Cases Review Commission Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on a juvenile offender resulting in indefinite notification requirements is disproportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether courts should reduce sentences to limit notification requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence of 30 months' detention is not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. However, the indefinite notification requirement resulting from the sentence is disproportionately harsh for a juvenile offender, as it precludes an opportunity for review, but the court is not compelled to reduce the sentence solely to comply with Article 8.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant's request to submit a draft certified question within 14 days granted