Granting Perry's appeal, Lady Justice Gloster held: «In my judgment, the judge was wholly wrong, both
as a
matter of principle and in the particular
circumstances of this case, to have engaged in the kind
of factual determination which he did
as to whether, on the balance
of probabilities, Mr Perry could have brought an «honest» services claim.
The court in this case considered three issues: i) how, under the existing legislation, the court should set a minimum term when imposing a sentence
of imprisonment for public protection where it is imposed upon a prisoner who is already subject to and serving an existing custodial term; ii) How the court should approach,
as a
matter of principle, imposing a sentence
of imprisonment upon someone who is already serving a sentence
of imprisonment for public protection and whether in the
circumstances of a case such
as this some adjustment, if it is otherwise permissible, may be made to the term which he is destined to serve before release may be considered; and iii) how in such
circumstances, if it is permissible to do either the first or second
as a
matter of principle, the court should approach the time spent in custody.