McDonagh, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1083 (27 July 2023)
The sentencing judge failed to reflect the mitigating factor of the appellant's ADHD, a recognised mental disorder, in the minimum term. Considering all aggravating and mitigating factors, a minimum term of 24 years (less days spent on remand) is appropriate; the original 26-year minimum was manifestly excessive.
- Citation
- [2023] EWCA Crim 1083
- Parties
- Appellant: Patrick McDonagh; Respondent: Rex (The Crown)
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 27 July 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Sentencing, Mental Disorder, Minimum Term, Mitigating Factors, Aggravating Factors, Fresh Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Patrick McDonagh
Appellant
Rex (The Crown)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the minimum term of 26 years was manifestly excessive for murder
- 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding premeditation and absence of self-defence
- 3 Whether fresh psychiatric evidence should be admitted
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge failed to reflect the mitigating factor of the appellant's ADHD, a recognised mental disorder, in the minimum term. Considering all aggravating and mitigating factors, a minimum term of 24 years (less days spent on remand) is appropriate; the original 26-year minimum was manifestly excessive.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part
Orders
- Sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 24 years less days spent on remand substituted for original sentence.
- Other sentences remain unchanged.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment