Nick Beechey

R v Davis & Others [2026] EWCA Crim 743. Appeared on appeal only for one of five conjoined appellants before a special court presided over by the Vice President, Court of Appeal Criminal Division, convened to address IPP/DPP sentences imposed on those age 21 and under at the time of sentence. The sentences were all quashed with the court saying: youth and immaturity were critical factors; that the court should be less pessimistic in assessing future risk when dealing with a young person with a capacity for rehabilitation and reform which may not exist for an older offender; and if there is insufficient evidence that these factors were properly taken into account, then given the severity of the indeterminate sentence, the court will replace the IPP/DPP sentence with a sentence from lower down the available options, if that is appropriate. Nick’s client had been convicted of a serious stranger rape. His DPP sentence was quashed and replaced with a determinate term, which had already been served.

R v Zulfqar [2025] EWCA Crim 1683. Appeared on appeal only. This was a renewed application for leave after refusal by the single judge. IPP imposed on a rape conviction quashed 14 years after sentence, on the ground that the sentencing judge had failed properly to consider the appellant’s relatively young age at the time and the imposition of an extended sentence as a realistic alternative to an IPP.

R v Sillito [2025] EWCA Crim 37 & 868; [2025] Crim LR 311; CLW/25/11/13; Archbold News 19 March 2025. Appeared on appeal only. IPP quashed 15 years after the sentence was imposed, after the appellant had served 10 years over his minimum term. The sentence was quashed on the grounds that the sentencing judge had not properly considered the appellant’s relatively young age and immaturity and the effect of ancillary measures when imposing the IPP. The court acknowledged the role that post-sentence reports could play in determining an appeal that would result in an IPP prisoner gaining immediate release. Sillito is one of four cases now being relied upon by the CCRC as part of their wholesale review of past and present applications regarding the imposition of IPPs on relatively young people.

R v Francesca Robinson [2023] EWCA Crim 320. Appeared on appeal only. IPP, imposed in 2012, quashed after the appellant had served some 9 years over tariff, on the ground that the IPP was unlawful as the conditions in s225(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (2008 iteration) had not been met.

R v Tsang [2023] EWCA Crim 350. Appeared on appeal only. Established that the principles in R v Sedden [2009] 2 Cr App R 9 and R v Shepherd [2019] 2 Cr App R 26, that a Bail Act offence cannot be treated as a lesser offence disclosed by the extradition information provided by the UK authorities, applied equally to s150 of the Extradition Act 2003 as it did to ss 146 and 151A of the Act.

R v Bolton [2019] EWCA Crim 1205. Appeared on appeal only. A considerable amount of research carried out by Nick Beechey was presented to the Court to show that the complainant, who had alleged a number of counts of sexual abuse when a child, was an inveterate fraudster who had multiple motives for making a false complaint. The complainant’s history had been uninvestigated by the Crown and what was known was not disclosed at trial. Convictions were quashed, no retrial was ordered and the appellant’s costs were awarded against the Crown.

R v Al-Khamis [2019] EWCA Crim 1291. Appeared on appeal only, successfully arguing that an IPP imposed a number of years earlier should be quashed as the sentencing judge ought to have found that an extended sentence was sufficient to protect the public.

R v Filmer-Haynes [2018] EWCA Crim 1659. Appeared on appeal only. Sentence reduced on appeal after trial lawyers failed to lodge an appeal alongside co-defendants whose appeals against sentence were allowed.

R v Jobling [2018] EWCA Crim 117. Appeared on appeal only, successfully arguing for a reduction in the minimum term of a life sentence in a sensitive domestic murder. Points of law involved what constitutes ‘domestic murder’ and that lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor. “The Appeal was pursued entirely appropriately and with skill” (Macur LJ).

R v Roberts & others [2016] EWCA Crim 71; [2016] 1 WLR 3249; [2016] 2 Cr App R (S)14; [2016] Crim LR 510. Appeared on appeal only for two of thirteen conjoined appeals (Quaglia and Byrne) before the Lord Chief Justice, concerning appeals against the imposition of IPPs brought by appellants still serving a significant number of years past tariff.

R v Mottram [2015] EWCA Crim 969. Appeared on appeal only. Sentence quashed on the ground that the Crown Court had exceeded its powers under s40(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

R v Adam Ryan [2014] EWCA Crim 2147. Appeared on appeal only. Successful appeal against the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) where the appellant was 7 years over tariff. Sentence had been passed just weeks before the judgment in R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864 was handed down and no one had previously considered that the law had been misapplied in this case.

R v Junior Clarke Lopez [2013] EWCA Crim 1744; [2014] Crim LR 384; CLW/14/15/5. Appeared on appeal only. Conviction quashed where original trial counsel conceded trial in absence without arguing the point. Given the defendant’s case rested almost entirely on his account that his confession in interview was false, there was in this case no justification to proceed to a trial in absence. The summing up as a whole came in for significant criticism. No retrial was sought.

R v Kirk Yarboi and others [2009] EWCA Crim 2760; [2010] Cr App R (S) 40; CLW/10/23/18. Sentencing of cash in transit robberies can be brought within the Sentencing Guidelines Council Guideline for street robbery/robbery of small businesses/less sophisticated commercial robberies. Sentence reduced.