JW, R v

JW, R v

There was insufficient material to justify rejection of expert reports finding the applicant not dangerous; the applicant's youth, evidence of reform, and positive behaviour militated against an indeterminate sentence. The indeterminate sentence was not appropriate; a determinate sentence of 12 years under section 91 was substituted.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: JW
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Dangerousness, Youth Offenders, Detention for Public Protection, Minimum Term Calculation
Criminal Law Sentencing Dangerousness Youth Offenders Detention for Public Protection Minimum Term Calculation

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

Parties

Regina

Respondent

JW

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the criteria for an indeterminate sentence for public protection were met
  2. 2 Whether the minimum term imposed was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

There was insufficient material to justify rejection of expert reports finding the applicant not dangerous; the applicant's youth, evidence of reform, and positive behaviour militated against an indeterminate sentence. The indeterminate sentence was not appropriate; a determinate sentence of 12 years under section 91 was substituted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentence of Detention for Public Protection quashed
  • Sentence of detention of 12 years under section 91 substituted