McMahon, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 598 (25 April 2023)

McMahon, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 598 (25 April 2023)

The sentence of 40 months' imprisonment was just and proportionate given the seriousness of the offence, aggravating features, and the applicant's record; the restraining order's prohibition on entering Penzance was unacceptably imprecise and must be quashed; procedural deficiencies did not affect the overall safety...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 598
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Nathan McMahon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Stalking, Restraining Orders, Appeals, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Sentencing Stalking Restraining Orders Appeals Procedural Fairness

Source-derived case record

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Nathan McMahon

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle
  2. 2 Whether the restraining order was too vague and imprecise
  3. 3 Whether procedural deficiencies (absence of counsel, lack of psychiatric report) rendered the sentence unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence of 40 months' imprisonment was just and proportionate given the seriousness of the offence, aggravating features, and the applicant's record; the restraining order's prohibition on entering Penzance was unacceptably imprecise and must be quashed; procedural deficiencies did not affect the overall safety of the sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Restraining order varied by deleting the prohibition on entering Penzance
  • Appellant to pay surcharge of £190