Royle, R v [2013] EWCA Crim 1461 (11 July 2013)

Royle, R v [2013] EWCA Crim 1461 (11 July 2013)

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 to cause serious harm rather than to kill; the minimum term is reduced to 25 years.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Crim 1461
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Mark Royle
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Murder, Robbery, Intent, Jury Directions, Sentencing
Criminal Law Murder Robbery Intent Jury Directions 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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Mark Royle

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the issue of 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 to cause serious harm rather than to kill; the minimum term is reduced to 25 years.

Court Disposition

appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

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