R, R v

R, R v

The sentencing judge was entitled to prefer Dr Browne's evidence and was not satisfied that the appellant's mental disorder met the statutory requirements for a Hospital Order. Life imprisonment was the correct disposal given the danger posed by the appellant and the lack of unanimous medical opinion.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: S. D. R.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Hospital Order, Life Imprisonment, Mental Disorder, Parole Eligibility
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Sentencing Hospital Order Life Imprisonment Mental Disorder Parole Eligibility

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

S. D. R.

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing life imprisonment instead of a Hospital Order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act with a restriction under section 41

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to prefer Dr Browne's evidence and was not satisfied that the appellant's mental disorder met the statutory requirements for a Hospital Order. Life imprisonment was the correct disposal given the danger posed by the appellant and the lack of unanimous medical opinion.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • sentence of life imprisonment affirmed
  • minimum term of seven years before parole consideration affirmed