Williams, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 873 (04 March 2025)

Williams, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 873 (04 March 2025)

The judge was entitled to categorise the offence as Category 1 harm due to the risk of serious disorder, even though the Trafford Centre was not equivalent to a school or similar place for vulnerable people. The uplift for previous convictions and commission of the offence while on bail was justified. The decision not to suspend the sentence was properly open to the judge given the risk to the public and lack of rehabilitation prospects.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 873
Parties
Applicant: Shaquille Williams; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession of Bladed Article, Sentencing Guidelines, Public Safety, Risk of Serious Disorder, Vulnerable Persons
Criminal Law Possession of Bladed Article Sentencing Guidelines Public Safety Risk of Serious Disorder Vulnerable Persons

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

Parties

Shaquille Williams

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence as Category 1 harm under the sentencing guidelines for possession of a bladed article
  2. 2 Whether the Trafford Centre qualifies as a place where vulnerable people are likely to be present for guideline purposes
  3. 3 Whether there was a risk of serious disorder justifying Category 1 harm

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to categorise the offence as Category 1 harm due to the risk of serious disorder, even though the Trafford Centre was not equivalent to a school or similar place for vulnerable people. The uplift for previous convictions and commission of the offence while on bail was justified. The decision not to suspend the sentence was properly open to the judge given the risk to the public and lack of rehabilitation prospects.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed