Dunford, R. v

Dunford, R. v

The minimum term of 13 years was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle given the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicant's mental health issues were properly considered. There was no substantive merit in the application, and the interests of justice did not require an extension of time.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Applicant: Lesley Ann Dunford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Murder, Manslaughter, Sentencing, Extension of Time, Mental Health in Sentencing
Criminal Law Murder Manslaughter Sentencing Extension of Time Mental Health in Sentencing

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Lesley Ann Dunford

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the minimum term of 13 years for murder was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's mental health and learning difficulties warranted a different sentence
  3. 3 Whether the delay justified an extension of time for appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The minimum term of 13 years was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle given the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicant's mental health issues were properly considered. There was no substantive merit in the application, and the interests of justice did not require an extension of time.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused
  • Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused