Mee, R v

Mee, R v

The 15-year travel restriction order was disproportionate to the risk presented by the appellant, given his personal mitigation, previous good character, and the facts of the case. A five-year order was sufficient to protect the public interest and address the risk of reoffending.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Jason David Mee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence (travel Restriction Order)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; travel restriction order reduced.
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Sentencing, Travel Restriction Orders, Proportionality
Criminal Law Drug Trafficking Sentencing Travel Restriction Orders Proportionality

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Jason David Mee

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence (travel Restriction Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 15-year travel restriction order imposed under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances of the appellant's offence

Ratio Decidendi

The 15-year travel restriction order was disproportionate to the risk presented by the appellant, given his personal mitigation, previous good character, and the facts of the case. A five-year order was sufficient to protect the public interest and address the risk of reoffending.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; travel restriction order reduced.

Orders

  • The 15-year travel restriction order is quashed.
  • A five-year travel restriction order is substituted.