T, R. v

T, R. v

The combination of the circumstances of the offence, the offender's history of aggression and violence, and his behaviour in custody established that he posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public. A determinate sentence would not provide adequate protection, making an extended sentence necessary under section 226B of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: T
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence; Reference by Solicitor General
Outcome
sentence quashed and substituted
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Dangerousness Provisions, Wounding With Intent, Youth Offenders

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

T

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence; Reference by Solicitor General

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or unduly lenient
  2. 2 Whether the dangerousness provisions under section 226B of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 should apply to a youth offender convicted of wounding with intent

Ratio Decidendi

The combination of the circumstances of the offence, the offender's history of aggression and violence, and his behaviour in custody established that he posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public. A determinate sentence would not provide adequate protection, making an extended sentence necessary under section 226B of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Court Disposition

sentence quashed and substituted

Orders

  • Sentence of five years' detention quashed for wounding with intent
  • Substituted with an extended sentence of eight years (five years' custody, three years' extension) under section 226B of the Criminal Justice Act 2003