Hunter, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1464 (19 November 2024)

Hunter, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1464 (19 November 2024)

The judge was entitled to sentence the appellant on the basis of intent to rape, as supported by the prosecution case and unchallenged evidence. The appellant had the opportunity to advance an alternative account or seek a Newton hearing but did not do so. The proceedings were fair, and the life sentence with a minimum term of 4 years and 130 days was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 1464
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Nathan Hunter
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Sexual Offences, Dangerous Offenders, Life Imprisonment, Basis of Plea, Newton Hearing
Criminal Law Sentencing Sexual Offences Dangerous Offenders Life Imprisonment Basis of Plea Newton Hearing

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

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Nathan Hunter

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in concluding the appellant intended to commit rape for the purposes of section 62(1) Sexual Offences Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the life sentence with a minimum term of 4 years and 130 days was manifestly excessive
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings were unfair due to lack of specificity in the indictment regarding the intended sexual offence

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to sentence the appellant on the basis of intent to rape, as supported by the prosecution case and unchallenged evidence. The appellant had the opportunity to advance an alternative account or seek a Newton hearing but did not do so. The proceedings were fair, and the life sentence with a minimum term of 4 years and 130 days was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed