S v R

S v R

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was refused because the evidence relied upon by the applicant was already before the jury, the fresh psychiatric evidence did not impugn the original finding of unfitness to plead, and the court had no power to remit the case for trial given the nature of the Hospital Order. The SOPO and notification requirements were not unjust at the time imposed, and any variation must be sought at Crown Court.

Parties
Applicant: S; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Insanity, Hospital Orders, Sexual Offences Prevention Orders, Notification Requirements, Appeals Procedure
Criminal Law Insanity Hospital Orders Sexual Offences Prevention Orders Notification Requirements Appeals Procedure

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

Parties

S

Applicant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether extension of time to appeal against findings of disability and commission of acts should be granted
  2. 2 whether the applicant was unfit to plead at the time of trial
  3. 3 whether indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order and notification requirements are unjust given changed circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was refused because the evidence relied upon by the applicant was already before the jury, the fresh psychiatric evidence did not impugn the original finding of unfitness to plead, and the court had no power to remit the case for trial given the nature of the Hospital Order. The SOPO and notification requirements were not unjust at the time imposed, and any variation must be sought at Crown Court.

Court Disposition

application refused