Gilbert v R [2012] EWCA Crim 1221 (01 June 2012)

Gilbert v R [2012] EWCA Crim 1221 (01 June 2012)

The judge had sufficient material to conclude the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public, and was not wrong to find dangerousness; thus, the indeterminate sentence was appropriate under the law at the time.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Crim 1221
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
Robbery, Sentencing, Dangerousness, Indeterminate Sentence, Public Protection, Mental Health Act
Criminal Law Robbery Sentencing Dangerousness Indeterminate Sentence Public Protection Mental Health Act

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 judge was correct in finding the appellant dangerous within the meaning of Section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the risk of harm to the public was 'serious'
  3. 3 Whether an indeterminate sentence was appropriate given the appellant's background and offending record

Ratio Decidendi

The judge had sufficient material to conclude the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public, and was not wrong to find dangerousness; thus, the indeterminate sentence was appropriate under the law at the time.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • extension of time granted
  • leave to appeal against sentence granted