Peter Roger Daniels v R
No arguable basis for challenging the deprivation order as it was properly made under s.143, with agreement of both parties at sentencing; complaints about extraction and retention of lawful material are administrative and not grounds for appeal; no justification for lengthy delay in application.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Roger Daniels; Respondent: The King
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 15 November 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence (deprivation Order)
- Outcome
- Applications for extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence refused.
- Legal Topics
- Deprivation Orders, Sentencing, Sexual Offences, Appeals Procedure
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Roger Daniels
Applicant
The King
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence (deprivation Order)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether deprivation order under s.143 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was properly made and should be quashed or remade
- 2 Whether items not linked to offending should be excluded from deprivation order
- 3 Whether lawful material should be extracted from devices before destruction
Ratio Decidendi
No arguable basis for challenging the deprivation order as it was properly made under s.143, with agreement of both parties at sentencing; complaints about extraction and retention of lawful material are administrative and not grounds for appeal; no justification for lengthy delay in application.
Court Disposition
Applications for extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Orders
- Application for extension of time refused.
- Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment