Stewart v Doncaster Youth Offending Team

A detention and training order comprising concurrent orders is treated as a single term. Persistent failures to attend supervision appointments may constitute one manifestation of failing to keep in touch, although separate supervision conditions may create separate offences and should ordinarily be charged separately. Service of supervision requirements may be proved by inference; direct evidence or a signed notice is not essential. The terms of the licence must be proved, but the licence itself need not ordinarily be produced. Properly authenticated records may be admitted under section 24(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

The appellant was convicted by the Doncaster Magistrates Court (Youth Panel) of failing to comply with a detention and training order, contrary to section 104 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The alleged breaches consisted of four failures to report to the Youth Offending Team and failure to reside at an approved address.

On an appeal by way of case stated, the Divisional Court considered whether concurrent detention and training orders were wrongly recorded as separate convictions, whether the information was duplicitous, and whether the prosecution had proved service and the terms of the supervision requirements, including through indirect evidence and a log book.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The court was entitled to uphold the conviction, although the memorandum of conviction required correction.
2. Under sections 100(3) and 101(13) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the concurrent detention and training orders made on the same occasion were to be treated as one 18-month term. The memorandum wrongly recorded four separate offences and should be rectified.
3. The information combined two separate alleged breaches: failure to keep in touch with the supervising officer and failure to reside at the approved address. Under Rule 12(3) of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981, the prosecutor should have been required to elect, or separate informations should have been used. The error caused no prejudice and did not invalidate the conviction. The four failures to report were properly viewed as one continuing manifestation of failure to keep in touch.
4. Sections 103(6) and 103(7) of the 2000 Act required the supervision requirements to be proved, but did not prescribe a particular form of proof. Service could be established by inference from the appellant’s attendance at his first supervision appointment and evidence of the standard notification procedure. Direct evidence of service was therefore unnecessary.
5. The prosecution proved the relevant supervision requirements. The supervising officer could give evidence of the licence terms, and production of the licence was not necessary in the circumstances, although ordinarily preferable. Evidence from the log book was admissible under section 24(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
6. Hearsay evidence that the appellant had failed to reside at the specified address would ordinarily be inadmissible. An inference from evidence that the appellant had told the supervising officer he was not living there could, however, establish the requirement. The residence issue was immaterial because the reporting breach was proved.

• Doncaster Magistrates Court (Youth Panel): convicted the appellant on 28 February 2002 of failing to comply with a detention and training order and recalled him to detention for 13 weeks.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and directed correction of the memorandum of conviction.