Igbebion, R v

A failure formally to ask an accused person whether a breach of bail is admitted does not necessarily invalidate a conviction under Bail Act 1976, section 6(1). The court must consider the procedure as a whole. The omission will not justify intervention where the defence had a full opportunity to contest the allegation and call evidence, the submissions necessarily admitted the breach, and there was no real dispute as to guilt.

A sentence for failing to surrender to bail will ordinarily be consecutive to sentences for other offences. In sentencing possession of false instruments, the distinction between possession and use, the absence of evidence of a wider criminal enterprise, and totality may require a substantial reduction.

The applicant had been convicted in the Crown Court of attempting to obtain services by deception in 1999. He failed to surrender for sentence and remained at large until 2003. After his arrest, altered passports were found in his possession. He later failed to surrender to police bail and was arrested again in 2004.

At Blackfriars Crown Court, Judge Walker imposed consecutive terms of nine months for the deception offence and breach of bail, and 18 months for possessing a false instrument, producing a total of three years. The applicant appealed the breach-of-bail conviction and sentence, and obtained leave to appeal the other sentences. The central issues were whether the breach-of-bail conviction was procedurally invalid and whether the sentences were excessive.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The court quashed the consecutive 18-month sentence for possessing a false instrument and substituted a consecutive sentence of nine months. The conviction for breach of bail and the remaining sentences were upheld.
2. Section 6(1) of the Bail Act 1976 concerns failure to surrender without reasonable cause. The court accepted that the judge should formally have asked the applicant, directly or through counsel, whether he admitted the breach. That omission did not invalidate the proceedings. The defence had been given a full opportunity to identify any dispute and to call evidence. Its submissions necessarily accepted the breach and contended only that events at the Magistrates’ Court made punishment unfair. There was therefore no genuine issue as to guilt.
3. The nine-month consecutive sentence for breach of bail was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. A sentence for failure to surrender should in principle run consecutively to sentences imposed for other offences. The applicant had been at large for a lengthy period and had no viable defence; any credit for admission was necessarily modest.
4. The nine-month sentence for attempting to obtain services by deception was also upheld. Although the attempt was detected early and caused no loss, the applicant had not pleaded guilty and lacked previous good character.
5. A consecutive sentence for possession of the false passports was appropriate because the offence was committed while the applicant was absconding. However, it was a possession case, not a use case. The facts did not permit an inference of involvement in a wider criminal enterprise. An 18-month consecutive term was excessive both individually and in the overall total; nine months consecutive achieved proper totality.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence only to the extent of substituting a nine-month consecutive sentence for possession of a false instrument: [2004] EWCA Crim 2724.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: On 5 April 2004, imposed a total of three years’ imprisonment for attempting to obtain services by deception, breach of bail, possession of a false instrument, and a driving offence.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: The applicant had been convicted by a jury on 24 September 1999 of attempting to obtain services by deception.