Matthews, R. v

Matthews, R. v

Given the exceptionally sadistic, pre-planned, and violent nature of the offences, the minimum term of 24 years for each applicant was not manifestly excessive and was justified by the gravity of the crimes.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Otis Lee Matthews; Applicant: James Stuart Raven; Applicant: John Godfrey Wilson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
applications refused
Legal Topics
Murder, Conspiracy to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm, Sentencing, Minimum Term, Transitional Provisions
Criminal Law Murder Conspiracy to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm Sentencing Minimum Term Transitional Provisions

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Otis Lee Matthews

Applicant

James Stuart Raven

Applicant

John Godfrey Wilson

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the minimum term of 24 years imposed on each applicant was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge failed to give proper weight to the lack of intent to kill
  3. 3 Whether individual circumstances of each applicant warranted a lower sentence

Ratio Decidendi

Given the exceptionally sadistic, pre-planned, and violent nature of the offences, the minimum term of 24 years for each applicant was not manifestly excessive and was justified by the gravity of the crimes.

Court Disposition

applications refused

Orders

  • Applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
  • Representation orders extended to cover the presentation of the applications.