Pullen, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 380 (20 February 2009)

Pullen, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 380 (20 February 2009)

Given the applicant's history of violent offending, inability to control his temper, and the risk of serious harm to the public, a sentence of imprisonment for public protection was the only appropriate sentence; the grounds of appeal are unarguable.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Crim 380
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Joseph Benjamin Pullen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence refused
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Imprisonment for Public Protection, Dangerousness, Extended Sentence, Domestic Violence, Reckless Endangerment
Criminal Law Sentencing Imprisonment for Public Protection Dangerousness Extended Sentence Domestic Violence Reckless Endangerment

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Joseph Benjamin Pullen

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing imprisonment for public protection rather than an extended sentence or other lawful sentence
  2. 2 Whether the assessment of dangerousness and risk of serious harm was justified

Ratio Decidendi

Given the applicant's history of violent offending, inability to control his temper, and the risk of serious harm to the public, a sentence of imprisonment for public protection was the only appropriate sentence; the grounds of appeal are unarguable.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
  • Record sheet to be amended to show conviction on Count 1 as destroying property being reckless as to whether life was endangered