Goode, R v [2002] EWCA Crim 1698 (4th July 2002)

Goode, R v [2002] EWCA Crim 1698 (4th July 2002)

The judge was entitled to conclude, based on the evidence and the seriousness of the offence, that a risk of serious relapse existed and that a restriction order was justified for public protection. The judge did not prejudge the issue; she disclosed her provisional view and considered evidence and argument before deciding.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Crim 1698
Parties
Prosecution: R; Appellant: Peter Goode
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Hospital Orders, Restriction Orders, Mental Health Act 1983, Judicial Impartiality, Public Protection
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Hospital Orders Restriction Orders Mental Health Act 1983 Judicial Impartiality Public Protection

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecution

Peter Goode

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the imposition of a restriction order under section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge prejudged the issue and should have recused herself

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to conclude, based on the evidence and the seriousness of the offence, that a risk of serious relapse existed and that a restriction order was justified for public protection. The judge did not prejudge the issue; she disclosed her provisional view and considered evidence and argument before deciding.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • restriction order under section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to remain in force