Gilbert v R

Gilbert v R

The sentencing judge had sufficient material to conclude that the applicant posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public, and was not wrong to impose an indeterminate sentence under Section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as it then stood.

Parties
Appellant: Paul Ronald Gilbert; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Dangerousness, Indeterminate Sentence, Imprisonment for Public Protection, Serious Harm, Criminal Justice Act 2003, Appeal Against Sentence
Criminal Law Dangerousness Indeterminate Sentence Imprisonment for Public Protection Serious Harm Criminal Justice Act 2003 Appeal Against Sentence

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Ronald Gilbert

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge was correct in finding the applicant dangerous within the meaning of Section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the risk of harm posed by the applicant was 'serious' so as to justify an indeterminate sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge had sufficient material to conclude that the applicant posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public, and was not wrong to impose an indeterminate sentence under Section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as it then stood.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence granted
  • Appeal against sentence dismissed