Royle, R v

Royle, R v

The judge's directions on intent were not a misdirection and, if anything, were more favourable to the appellant than required by law. The conviction is safe. However, the minimum term of 28 years was excessive given the absence of premeditation and the intention being formed in seconds; a minimum term of 25 years is appropriate.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Mark Royle
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Murder, Robbery, Intent, Sentencing, Appeal
Criminal Law Murder Robbery Intent Sentencing Appeal

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Mark Royle

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on intent for murder
  2. 2 Whether the minimum term of 28 years was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's directions on intent were not a misdirection and, if anything, were more favourable to the appellant than required by law. The conviction is safe. However, the minimum term of 28 years was excessive given the absence of premeditation and the intention being formed in seconds; a minimum term of 25 years is appropriate.

Court Disposition

conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Conviction for murder upheld
  • Minimum term reduced from 28 years to 25 years