Jenkins, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1825 (18 December 2026)

Jenkins, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1825 (18 December 2026)

The court held that the 16-week sentence should not run consecutively but concurrently, as the offence was properly categorised under culpability B, harm category 2, and the appellant had already served the sentence. The appeal was allowed and the necessary extension of time granted.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1825
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Jamie Jenkins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence; Hearing De Novo
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Hospital Orders, Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Sentencing Hospital Orders Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences Appeal Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Jamie Jenkins

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence; Hearing De Novo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of 16 weeks should run consecutively or concurrently to other sentences
  2. 2 Appropriateness of hospital order under sections 37/41 of the Mental Health Act 1983
  3. 3 Correct categorisation of offence under sentencing guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the 16-week sentence should not run consecutively but concurrently, as the offence was properly categorised under culpability B, harm category 2, and the appellant had already served the sentence. The appeal was allowed and the necessary extension of time granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • 16-week sentence to run concurrently, not consecutively
  • Sentence deemed served from 3 March 2020