L, R v

L, R v

The trial judge erred by basing the disapplication of early release provisions on the appellant's dangerousness rather than the seriousness of the offence. Applying the correct legal framework, including transitional provisions and relevant practice directions, the appropriate minimum term is 21 years and 172 days, after crediting time spent on remand.

Parties
Appellant: G. L.; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; sentence varied
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Murder, Life Imprisonment, Early Release Provisions, Mental Disorder and Culpability

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

Parties

G. L.

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in disapplying early release provisions under section 269(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 based on dangerousness rather than seriousness of the offence
  2. 2 Determination of the appropriate minimum term for life imprisonment in light of transitional provisions and prior practice

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by basing the disapplication of early release provisions on the appellant's dangerousness rather than the seriousness of the offence. Applying the correct legal framework, including transitional provisions and relevant practice directions, the appropriate minimum term is 21 years and 172 days, after crediting time spent on remand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; sentence varied

Orders

  • Quash the whole life order
  • Substitute a minimum term of 21 years and 172 days before eligibility for parole