Waller, R. v

Waller, R. v

The imposition of an IPP was inappropriate because the risk of serious harm to children from the appellant's reoffending was too remote, as established in Terrell and subsequent cases. The evidence did not support a significant risk of serious harm directly occasioned by the appellant's future offending.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Michael Waller
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Imprisonment for Public Protection, Sexual Offences, Indecent Images of Children
Criminal Law Sentencing Imprisonment for Public Protection Sexual Offences Indecent Images of Children

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Michael Waller

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the imposition of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) was appropriate for offences of making indecent photographs of children where the risk of serious harm was not direct or specific.

Ratio Decidendi

The imposition of an IPP was inappropriate because the risk of serious harm to children from the appellant's reoffending was too remote, as established in Terrell and subsequent cases. The evidence did not support a significant risk of serious harm directly occasioned by the appellant's future offending.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Imprisonment for public protection quashed.
  • Replaced with a determinate sentence of three years' imprisonment as calculated by the sentencing judge.