White, R. v

White, R. v

The court found it unreasonable to conclude that the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public under the statutory test of dangerousness, given the absence of intent, remorse, and his resolve to address alcohol misuse. The sentence of imprisonment for public protection was quashed and replaced with a determinate sentence of eight years, less time spent on remand.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Paul White
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Sentencing, Imprisonment for Public Protection, Dangerousness Assessment
Criminal Law Manslaughter Sentencing Imprisonment for Public Protection Dangerousness Assessment

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Paul White

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether imprisonment for public protection was appropriate given the facts and statutory test of dangerousness
  2. 2 Whether the length of the determinate sentence was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The court found it unreasonable to conclude that the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public under the statutory test of dangerousness, given the absence of intent, remorse, and his resolve to address alcohol misuse. The sentence of imprisonment for public protection was quashed and replaced with a determinate sentence of eight years, less time spent on remand.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentence of imprisonment for public protection quashed
  • Determinate sentence of eight years imposed