Cooper, R. v

Cooper, R. v

The sentencing judge was entitled to impose a life sentence based on the gravity and nature of the offences, the risk posed by the appellant, and the evidence available, even disregarding the disputed psychiatric diagnosis. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive at the time or in light of fresh evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Ivan Cooper; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Disclosure of Privileged Material, Psychiatric Evidence, Dangerousness, Life Imprisonment
Criminal Law Sentencing Disclosure of Privileged Material Psychiatric Evidence Dangerousness Life Imprisonment

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ivan Cooper

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in relying on a psychiatric report disclosed without authority
  2. 2 Whether the life sentence imposed was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive
  3. 3 Whether fresh psychiatric evidence alters the appropriateness of the life sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to impose a life sentence based on the gravity and nature of the offences, the risk posed by the appellant, and the evidence available, even disregarding the disputed psychiatric diagnosis. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive at the time or in light of fresh evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed