The defendant said that the judge in setting his sentence had failed correctly to identify the time he had spent in custody awaiting trial, and which would act as time served.
Held: The defendants were entitled to a direction. If the time for varying the order under s155 of the 2000 Act had passed, an appeal was appropriate. The court identified several principles: It is vital that the court is provided with accurate information as to the number of days which are said to have been spent on remand; If the information provided turns out to be incorrect, the sentencing court can only correct the mistake within 28 days unless the judge’s order has identified the period in question, but the order as drafted has simply miscalculated the number of days. In that case, the court record can be amended; The procedure under section 240 of the 2003 Act is mandatory in regard to determinate sentences of imprisonment or detention imposed for offences committed on or after the 4th April 2005; Care must be taken to apply the 2005 Rules, whenever a defendant falls to be sentenced for offences committed both before and after the 4th April 2005; Care must also be taken in the case of young offenders to note that, if a Detention and Training Order has intervened between arrest and sentence, the 2005 Rules, do not apply. If the court wishes to disapply the period in question, it must give reasons for so doing; If the period for which the direction has been given is wrong, and both parties agree, but more than 28 days have elapsed since the sentence was imposed, the application for leave to appeal should so state.
Judges:
Latham LJ VP, Forbes, Irwin JJ
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Crim 1792, Times 04-Aug-2006, [2006] Crim LR 1073
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 1967 67, Criminal Justice Act 2003 240, The Remand in Custody (Effect of Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences of Imprisonment) Rules 2005 2, Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing Act) 2000 155
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Michael QBD 1976
There has been a failure on the part of the trial judge to include costs incurred at a committal hearing in an order for costs which was made in favour of an accused who had been acquitted. It had plainly been the intention of the trial judge to . .
Cited – Regina v Saville CACD 24-Jan-1980
The Crown Court had made a criminal bankruptcy order in the sum of andpound;5,000 but failed to identify how that was to be distributed between the offences. The judge subsequently, but after the 28 day period provided by section 11(2) of the 1971 . .
Cited – Regina v Oosthuizen CACD 11-Jul-2005
The defendant appealed his sentence of two years for robbery, saying that it had been wrong to impose a deterrent sentence because of an apparently high number of robberies in the area.
Held: The judge must sentence the defendant before him. . .
Cited – Regina v Kent 1982
The order of the court is the order pronounced by the judge in open court. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Probyn ex parte Walker; Regina v Taylor CACD 29-Jul-1997
In his sentencing remarks the judge had started by directing his return to prison and then turned to the sentences for the offence in question.
Held: A sentencing tribunal should first decide what the appropriate sentence was for the new . .
Cited – Lang and Others, Regina v CACD 3-Nov-2005
In each case the defendant had commited violent or sexual offences and were caught by the new mandatory sentencing provisions, and been made subject to life imprisonment, or detention for public protection, or an extended sentence.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Annesley CACD 1976
The court has a common law power to defer part of its sentencing process. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Gordon, Regina v; Regina v Taylor etc CACD 8-Feb-2007
The court considered the interaction of sections 240 of the 2003 Act, and 67 of the 1967 Act as applied to time spent on remand.
Held: The court laying down the sentence should address this issue, and declare whether all time or otherwise . .
Cited – Reynolds and Others, Regina v CACD 8-Mar-2007
The court considered how it could marry the law against the increase of penaties on appeal with the possible need to correct a judge’s error in sentencing. It summarised the provisions for sentencing for specified offences: ‘[The] regime requires . .
Cited – Leacock and Others, Regina v CACD 12-Nov-2013
The defendants sought leave to appeal against their sentences, saying that the time served calculations had not included time spent subject to curfew and otherwise.
Held: ‘if a prisoner is serving a sentence for another offence at the time on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243344