REGINA v MARC RICHARD STOKES-DENSON

REGINA v MARC RICHARD STOKES-DENSON

Exclusion of psychiatric evidence did not render the trial unfair as it was not relevant to intent; sentence was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness, planning, and targeting involved; indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order was justified.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Marc Richard Stokes-Denson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused; extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Arranging or Facilitating Sexual Activity With a Child, Attempted Sexual Communication With a Child, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Sentencing Guidelines, Sexual Harm Prevention Orders
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Arranging or Facilitating Sexual Activity With a Child Attempted Sexual Communication With a Child Admissibility of Expert Evidence Sentencing Guidelines Sexual Harm Prevention Orders

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

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Marc Richard Stokes-Denson

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion of psychiatric expert evidence rendered the trial unfair
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
  3. 3 Appropriateness of indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order

Ratio Decidendi

Exclusion of psychiatric evidence did not render the trial unfair as it was not relevant to intent; sentence was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness, planning, and targeting involved; indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order was justified.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused; extension of time refused.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence stand.
  • Sexual Harm Prevention Order for indefinite period upheld.