Gore, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 369 (01 March 2010)

Gore, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 369 (01 March 2010)

The sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) was lawfully imposed because, during the 2009 sentencing, the appellant's counsel admitted on instructions that the 1996 robbery was a joint enterprise involving a firearm, satisfying the statutory precondition under section 225(3A) and Schedule 15A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Crim 369
Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Stephen Gore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp), Manslaughter, Robbery, Joint Enterprise, Firearms in Robbery, Interpretation of Criminal Statutes
Criminal Law Sentencing Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp) Manslaughter Robbery Joint Enterprise Firearms in Robbery Interpretation of Criminal Statutes

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Stephen Gore

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's previous conviction for robbery involved possession of a firearm within the meaning of Schedule 15A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, thus permitting a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) for the current manslaughter offence.
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge was entitled to rely on counsel's admission regarding the facts of the previous robbery.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence of IPP was lawfully imposed.

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) was lawfully imposed because, during the 2009 sentencing, the appellant's counsel admitted on instructions that the 1996 robbery was a joint enterprise involving a firearm, satisfying the statutory precondition under section 225(3A) and Schedule 15A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) upheld