Bell v R.

Bell v R.

The Sullivan principle does not apply to discretionary life sentences for manslaughter. The minimum term for such sentences should be set according to current sentencing practice, provided it does not exceed the maximum penalty applicable at the time of the offence. The sentencing judge was correct to follow the principles in R v H and Masefield, and the minimum term imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

Parties
Appellant: Martin Christopher Bell; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Minimum Term of Life Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Sentencing, Minimum Term, Diminished Responsibility, Article 7 ECHR, Discretionary Life Sentence
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Manslaughter Sentencing Minimum Term Diminished Responsibility Article 7 ECHR Discretionary Life Sentence

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Christopher Bell

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Minimum Term of Life Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 7.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits the imposition of a minimum term greater than would have been imposed at the time of the offence for a discretionary life sentence for manslaughter committed in 2000 but sentenced in 2014
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle or imposed a manifestly excessive minimum term

Ratio Decidendi

The Sullivan principle does not apply to discretionary life sentences for manslaughter. The minimum term for such sentences should be set according to current sentencing practice, provided it does not exceed the maximum penalty applicable at the time of the offence. The sentencing judge was correct to follow the principles in R v H and Masefield, and the minimum term imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against the minimum term is dismissed.