Healy, R v

When a court makes an order under section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 after an offender has committed a further offence following release on licence, it must allow for time spent in custody after revocation of that licence under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. For a short-term prisoner, the allowance is calculated by doubling that custodial period and deducting it from the maximum period available under section 116. Sentencing advocates must obtain complete custody information, and judges should address this issue where a section 116 order is contemplated.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Inner London Crown Court to handling stolen goods, with a further handling offence taken into consideration. He received 15 months’ imprisonment and a consecutive period of 537 days’ custody for breach of licence under section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

His earlier licence had been revoked after the new offending. He had spent 81 days in custody under that revocation before reverting to remand status, but that information was not before the sentencing judge. The appeal concerned the allowance required for that period when fixing the section 116 term.

1. The appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The order requiring 537 days’ custody under section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was wrong in principle because the sentencing judge had not been given the material information about the 81 days spent in custody after revocation of the appellant’s licence.

2. Following Stocker, [2003] 2 Cr.App.R(S) 54, and Teasdale, [2004] 1 Cr.App.R(S) 6, a court making a section 116 order after further offending committed following release must make an appropriate allowance for custody served after licence revocation pursuant to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

3. For a short-term prisoner, the correct calculation is to double the period served following revocation and deduct it from the maximum period under section 116. The 81-day period therefore required a deduction of 162 days, producing a substituted term of 375 days.

4. The 15-month sentence for handling stolen goods was not otherwise open to criticism, having regard to the appellant’s record, his offending shortly after release, and the circumstances of the handling. The court emphasised that counsel should obtain full custody information before sentence and that judges should be alert to this recurrent sentencing issue.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentencing appeal to the extent of substituting 375 days for the 537-day section 116 custody period.
• Inner London Crown Court: On 9 September 2003, following guilty pleas to handling stolen goods with a further handling offence taken into consideration, imposed 15 months’ imprisonment and a consecutive 537-day period under section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.