Roberts & Ors, R. v

Roberts & Ors, R. v

The Court of Appeal refused to extend time for all 13 applications. The original IPP sentences were imposed in accordance with the statutory criteria and case law applicable at the time. The court's function is to review whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive based on the material before the sentencing court, not to resentence based on subsequent developments or the passage of time. Any remedy for ongoing detention or perceived injustice lies with the Parole Board, Executive, or Parliament, not the appellate court.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Applicant: Mark Roberts; Applicant: Natasha Precado; Applicant: David Craig Quaglia; Applicant: Paul Anthony Woodward; Applicant: Simeon Peter Gittens; Applicant: Joseph Steven Powney; Applicant: Nigel Darren Garbutt; Applicant: Jason William Warwick; Applicant: Martin Lee Fay; Applicant: Kelly Georgina Diveney; Applicant: Darren Paul Byrne; Applicant: Sonnie Michael Wakeling; Applicant: Sean Dowe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Sentence
Outcome
All applications for extension of time to appeal sentence refused.
Legal Topics
Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp), Dangerous Offenders, Extension of Time, Human Rights, Minimum Terms, Parole, Judicial Review
Criminal Law Sentencing Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp) Dangerous Offenders Extension of Time Human Rights Minimum Terms Parole +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Mark Roberts

Applicant

Natasha Precado

Applicant

David Craig Quaglia

Applicant

Paul Anthony Woodward

Applicant

Simeon Peter Gittens

Applicant

Joseph Steven Powney

Applicant

Nigel Darren Garbutt

Applicant

Jason William Warwick

Applicant

Martin Lee Fay

Applicant

Kelly Georgina Diveney

Applicant

Darren Paul Byrne

Applicant

Sonnie Michael Wakeling

Applicant

Sean Dowe

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) imposed between 2005 and 2008 were justified under the statutory criteria and case law
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal should extend time to allow appeals against IPP sentences many years out of time
  3. 3 Whether the continued detention under IPP sentences breaches Articles 3 or 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal refused to extend time for all 13 applications. The original IPP sentences were imposed in accordance with the statutory criteria and case law applicable at the time. The court's function is to review whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive based on the material before the sentencing court, not to resentence based on subsequent developments or the passage of time. Any remedy for ongoing detention or perceived injustice lies with the Parole Board, Executive, or Parliament, not the appellate court.

Court Disposition

All applications for extension of time to appeal sentence refused.