Lees-Sandey, R (on the application of) v Chichester Crown Court

Judicial review does not provide a general route for reducing a sentence considered excessive. The sentence must be beyond the lower court’s jurisdiction or wrong in law, and departure from ordinary sentencing levels must be sufficiently extreme to amount to one of those errors. Consecutive sentences are not unlawful merely because offences were committed close together or formed part of a sequence. Separate victims may justify separate sentences, subject to the totality principle. On a sentence appeal, the Crown Court should determine the appropriate sentence and should not increase it to correct an earlier procedural decision by magistrates to retain jurisdiction. Treating that earlier decision as an irrelevant consideration may constitute an error of law.

The claimant pleaded guilty to three offences of indecent assault under section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The magistrates imposed consecutive sentences totalling eight months’ imprisonment. On the claimant’s sentence appeal, the Chichester Crown Court increased the total to 12 months, partly because it considered that the magistrates should have committed the claimant to the Crown Court for sentence.

The claimant sought judicial review, alleging that the sentence was excessive, that consecutive sentences for two of the offences were unlawful, and that the Crown Court had relied on the magistrates’ earlier procedural decision.

1. The claim succeeded. The Divisional Court quashed the Crown Court’s sentence and substituted the magistrates’ original sentence of eight months’ imprisonment, comprising four months, two months and two months consecutively.

2. Judicial review is concerned with legality, not ordinary sentence correction. A sentence may be quashed only where it is beyond jurisdiction or wrong in law. A sentence is not reviewable merely because it is surprisingly or unduly severe; the departure from ordinary sentencing standards must be sufficiently great to constitute an excess of jurisdiction or an error of law. The 12-month sentence was not quashed simply because of its length.

3. The fact that two offences were committed close together did not require concurrent sentences. There were two victims, each of whom suffered distress and humiliation. Sentencing courts may group offences to give effect to totality, but Amin did not establish a rule requiring concurrent sentences in such circumstances.

4. Section 152 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 requires the sentencing court to take account of a guilty plea and the stage at which it was entered. Although the statute does not expressly require a discount, a discount is ordinarily appropriate. In this case, a sentence of 12 months would have been most unusual if imposed by the magistrates.

5. The Crown Court treated the magistrates’ decision to retain jurisdiction, rather than commit the claimant for sentence, as an error requiring correction. That procedural issue was no longer material when the sentence appeal was heard. The Crown Court had to determine the proper sentence on the appeal and was not entitled to increase it because of that earlier decision. Its reliance on that irrelevant consideration was an error of law.

• Chichester Magistrates’ Court: imposed consecutive sentences totalling eight months’ imprisonment.
• Chichester Crown Court: increased the sentence on appeal to 12 months’ imprisonment.
• High Court (Administrative Court): quashed the Crown Court’s decision and substituted the original eight-month sentence.