McDonagh, R v [2025] EWCA Crim 953 (01 July 2025)

McDonagh, R v [2025] EWCA Crim 953 (01 July 2025)

The sentencing judge was entitled to categorise the offence as B1 due to the serious harm caused to the victim, including a fractured femur, and the deliberate targeting of a vulnerable person. The sentence, after credit for the guilty plea and consideration of mitigation, was within the reasonable range and not manifestly excessive. No error of principle was disclosed.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 953
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Robert McDonagh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Renew Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Robbery, Sentencing, Appeals, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors, Guilty Plea Credit
Criminal Law Robbery Sentencing Appeals Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Guilty Plea Credit

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Robert McDonagh

Applicant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of 12 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence under the sentencing guidelines
  3. 3 Whether sufficient credit was given for mitigation and guilty plea

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to categorise the offence as B1 due to the serious harm caused to the victim, including a fractured femur, and the deliberate targeting of a vulnerable person. The sentence, after credit for the guilty plea and consideration of mitigation, was within the reasonable range and not manifestly excessive. No error of principle was disclosed.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to renew application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.