Docherty, R v

Docherty, R v

The sentencing judge did not err in imposing an IPP sentence as it was available at the date of conviction and was appropriate given the appellant's high risk of serious harm and the absence of a foreseeable time frame for risk reduction. The abolition of IPP did not require the imposition of an extended sentence under Article 7 or Article 14 ECHR, nor did the principle of lex mitior apply, as a life sentence would have been a real possibility under the new regime.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Shaun Kevin Docherty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Dangerous Offenders, Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp), Extended Sentence, Article 7 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR, Lex Mitior
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Sentencing Dangerous Offenders Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp) Extended Sentence Article 7 ECHR Article 14 ECHR +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Shaun Kevin Docherty

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing an IPP sentence instead of an extended sentence or other lesser restriction
  2. 2 Whether the abolition of IPP prior to sentencing required the imposition of an extended sentence to comply with Article 7 and Article 14 ECHR and the principle of lex mitior

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in imposing an IPP sentence as it was available at the date of conviction and was appropriate given the appellant's high risk of serious harm and the absence of a foreseeable time frame for risk reduction. The abolition of IPP did not require the imposition of an extended sentence under Article 7 or Article 14 ECHR, nor did the principle of lex mitior apply, as a life sentence would have been a real possibility under the new regime.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed