Shaw, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 982 (19 April 2010)

The sentences imposed were not unlawful, wrong in principle, or manifestly excessive, and compassionate release is a matter for the Secretary of State, not the Court of Appeal.

Citation: [2010] EWCA Crim 982
Parties: Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Peter John Shaw
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 19 April 2010
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Extension of Time
Outcome: application refused
Legal Topics: Compassionate Release, Sentence Appeal, Dangerous Driving, Possession With Intent to Supply, Handling Stolen Goods

Criminal Law Compassionate Release Sentence Appeal Dangerous Driving Possession With Intent to Supply Handling Stolen Goods

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Peter John Shaw

Applicant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

1 Whether the sentence imposed was wrong in law or manifestly excessive
2 Whether the court should reduce the sentence on compassionate grounds due to medical condition
3 Whether the appropriate authority for compassionate release is the court or the Secretary of State

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed were not unlawful, wrong in principle, or manifestly excessive, and compassionate release is a matter for the Secretary of State, not the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

Refusal of extension of time to appeal
Refusal of leave to appeal against sentence