Non-consolidation of sentence to debar home curfew
Each defendant had been sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment under the 1991 and 2003 Acts. One was above and one below twelve months. They complained that the result of trying to reconcile the statutory provisions was that they had effectively been excluded from consideration under the home detention curfew scheme.
Held: The 2003 Act had been intended to implement fundamental changes in sentencing, but having been only partly implemented, elements of the 1991 system remained in place. The result was as complained of, and the two sentences could not be added together to allow consideration under the scheme. The precise effect even depended on which sentence was pronounced first. It was not the duty of sentencers to structure their sentencing to ensure the first possible release date. The fault was an inadvertent result of delay by the Ministry of Justice, who had not indicated any time scale to remedy the defect. They should explore practicable solutions.
Hughes LJ said: ‘We are very conscious that the varying, not to say erratic, effect of the existence of two differing statutory regimes applying to the same defendant is to create real and disturbing anomalies between prisoners who ought in fairness to be treated similarly.’ and ‘Our clear conclusion is that it is not wrong in principle for a judge to refuse to consider early release possibilities when calculating his sentence or framing the manner or order in which they are expressed to be imposed. We are quite satisfied that it is neither necessary nor right, nor indeed practicable, for a sentencing court to undertake such examinations. Ordinarily, indeed, it will be wrong to do so, although there may be particular cases in which an unusual course is justified. The judge must be left to express his sentences in the most natural and comprehensible manner possible. Very often that will no doubt mean that the principal, and longest, sentence comes first. In other cases it may not, for example because, as in Dunne, the judge follows the chronological or indictment order of offences.’
Lord Justice Hughes, Mrs Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Hedley
Times 22-Dec-2009, [2009] EWCA Crim 2667, [2010] Crim LR 329, [2010] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 45
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003, Criminal Justice Act 1991, Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No 8 and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2005 14
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Noone, Regina (on the Application of) v HMP Drake Hall and Another CA 17-Oct-2008
The prisoner disputed the calculation of the date when she would become entitled to consideration for early release under a Home Detention Curfew. The Secretary of State appealed against a decision that his policy guidance was unlawful.
Held: . .
Cited – Highton, Regina (on the Application of) v Her Majesty’s Youth Offender Institute Lancaster Farms and Another Admn 17-Apr-2007
Challenge to calculation of servable sentence term. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Noone, Regina (on The Application of) v Governor of HMP Drake Hall and Another SC 30-Jun-2010
The prisoner had been sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment, one for less, and one for more than 12 months. She disputed the date on which she should be released to home detention under curfew under the Guidance issued by the Secretary of . .
Cited – Stott, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 28-Nov-2018
Extended Determinate Sentence created Other Status
The prisoner was subject to an extended determinate sentence (21 years plus 4) for 10 offences of rape. He complained that as such he would only be eligible for parole after serving two thirds of his sentence rather than one third, and said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.384151