(Mauritius) ‘In principle it seems to be clear that where a person is suspected of having committed an offence, is taken into custody and is subsequently convicted, the sentence imposed should be the sentence which is appropriate for the offence. It seems to be clear too that any time spent in custody prior to sentencing should be taken fully into account, not simply by means of a form of words but by means of an arithmetical deduction when assessing the length of the sentence that is to be served from the date of sentencing
Their Lordships recognise that there may be unusual cases where a defendant has deliberately delayed proceedings so as to ensure that a larger proportion of his sentence is spent as a prisoner on remand. In such a case it might be appropriate not to make what would otherwise be the usual order. Similarly a defendant who is in custody for more than one offence should not expect to be able to take advantage of time spent in custody more than once’
Judges:
Lord Hope of Craigadhe, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Mance, Sir Paul Kennedy
Citations:
[2008] UKPC 49, [2009] 4 LRC 777
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Sherry v The Queen PC 4-Mar-2013
Discretion as to credit for remand time
(Guernsey) In 1980 the appellant had been sentenced to three months imprisonment. He had spent 10 days on remand, but no allowance was given for that time. He gave notice of appeal, but after being released on open remand, he failed to appear at his . .
Cited – Gomes v The State PC 25-Feb-2015
Trinidad and Tobago – Appeal against sentence – the sentencing court was said not to have allowed for the time spent by the defendant on remand pending extradition from England.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had correctly exercised the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471326