Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The sentencing judge followed the relevant guidelines, properly accounted for RDP's age and individual circumstances, and imposed a sentence commensurate with the seriousness and ongoing risk posed by the offences. The custodial and extension periods were justified and not manifestly excessive.
Source excerpt
The DJ was entitled to reject the appellant's account and Dr Cohen's evidence, given inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The CPT report did not establish a strong enough case to rebut the presumption of adequate treatment or demonstrate a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Albanian prisons. Updated medical evidence did not show a diagnosis or treatment need beyond anxiety and depression manageable in general custody. The high threshold for bars to extradition under sections 87 and 91 was not met.
Source excerpt
The offence should have been categorised as 1B, not 1A, because there was insufficient evidence of significant planning; the combination of harm factors justified category 1 for harm, but not category A for culpability; the sentence of 15 years was manifestly excessive and is substituted with 12 years.
Source excerpt
The original sentence of 9 years was unduly lenient given the frequency and duration of the rapes, the severe and ongoing psychological harm, and the additional trauma caused by pregnancy. The proper sentence reflecting the totality of criminality and aggravating features is 16 years' imprisonment on each lead count, concurrent.
Source excerpt
The evidence of grooming, vulnerability, and circumstances surrounding the sexual activity was sufficient for the jury to conclude lack of proper consent. Sentences imposed were within guideline ranges and not manifestly excessive. Restraining orders were not necessary given the historic nature of offences and lack of notice or reasons.
Source excerpt
The applicant's grounds for appeal are not arguable, and there is no merit in granting the extension of time; therefore, the application is refused and the appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed Matthew Dickens’s appeal against rape convictions, finding no unsafe trial from the section 41 issue, neurodiversity, or medical evidence.
Dickens, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 542 (08 May 2026)
The Court of Appeal Criminal Division dismissed Matthew Dickens’s appeal against rape convictions, rejecting challenges about section 41, neurodiversity, and trial fairness.
The Court of Appeal held that section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did not prevent a trial judge from reversing a mid-trial ruling of no case to answer.
The judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences for offences against two victims, properly applied sentencing guidelines and totality, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness, breach of trust, and psychological harm caused.
Source excerpt
Explore more
