Pittman, R. v

Pittman, R. v

The judge was justified in concluding the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm, warranting an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection, but the minimum term must be reduced by the 330 days spent in custody and a separate extended sentence imposed for voyeurism.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Terrence John Pittman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Imprisonment for Public Protection, Minimum Term Calculation, Dangerous Offender, Voyeurism, Taking Indecent Photographs of Children

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

Terrence John Pittman

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm justifying imprisonment for public protection
  2. 2 Whether the minimum term set by the judge properly accounted for time spent in custody
  3. 3 Whether a separate penalty should have been imposed for the offence of voyeurism

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was justified in concluding the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm, warranting an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection, but the minimum term must be reduced by the 330 days spent in custody and a separate extended sentence imposed for voyeurism.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Minimum term reduced to two years less 330 days
  • Twelve months' imprisonment with an extension period of two and a half years (less 330 days) imposed for voyeurism, concurrent with other sentences