Oxley, R v

Where a failure-to-surrender offence is dealt with summarily and is not committed to the Crown Court because the magistrates’ sentencing powers for that offence are inadequate, the Crown Court remains limited to the magistrates’ maximum sentence. The 12-month maximum in section 6(7) of the Bail Act applies only to the specified committal for sentence or contempt route; it did not apply to an ordinary committal alongside other offences.

A consecutive sentence for a bail offence may be appropriate. The sentencing court must nevertheless assess the totality of the offending. On appeal, the court may adjust individual sentences to preserve an appropriate overall term, but need not do so where the total sentence properly reflects the offender’s overall criminality.

The appellant pleaded guilty before the magistrates to two burglaries, theft, and failing to surrender to bail. He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. The burglary committal was under section 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000; the theft and bail-offence committal was under section 6 of that Act.

The Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences of 42 months for burglary and consecutive sentences of three months each for theft and failing to surrender, producing a total of four years. The appellant challenged the three-month sentence for the bail offence and, consequently, the overall term. The central issues were whether the bail sentence was a sentence for contempt, the applicable statutory maximum, and whether the total sentence was excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court granted leave if it was required, but made no alteration to the four-year total sentence.

2. The appellant had pleaded guilty to an offence under section 6(1) of the Bail Act. The matter had been dealt with summarily as a statutory bail offence, in accordance with the practice in Schiavo v Anderton [1987] QB 20, rather than as a criminal contempt. Leave to appeal was therefore required; section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 did not provide an appeal as of right.

3. The Crown Court’s sentencing power for the bail offence was limited by section 7 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to the magistrates’ power. Although section 6(7) of the Bail Act provides a 12-month maximum where a person is committed for sentence or dealt with for contempt, that reference to committal meant a committal because the magistrates considered their powers inadequate for the bail offence. The appellant had not been so committed. The applicable maximum was therefore three months.

4. The maximum sentence did not make the three-month consecutive term manifestly excessive. A consecutive sentence could properly be imposed for a Bail Act offence, as recognised in R v White and McKinnon [2002] EWCA Crim 2952. Given the appellant’s extensive record, further offences taken into consideration, and offending while on bail, the Recorder was entitled to fix a total sentence of four years.

5. Section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 would have permitted the court to reduce the bail sentence while increasing the substantive sentences to maintain an appropriate total. That course was unnecessary because the existing individual and total sentences properly reflected the appellant’s total criminality.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed in [2003] EWCA Crim 3739. Leave was granted if necessary.

• Crown Court: On 6 June 2003, imposed a total sentence of four years’ imprisonment following committal for sentence from the magistrates’ court.

• Magistrates’ court: On 9 May 2003, accepted guilty pleas and committed the appellant for sentence under sections 3 and 6 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.