Gibson, R (on the application of) v Chief Inspector Carroll & Anor

Where a sentencing court requires an offender both to undertake unpaid work and to remain under supervision, the statutory limits governing a community punishment and rehabilitation order apply according to the substance of the requirements imposed. The court cannot avoid those limits by making separate consecutive community punishment and rehabilitation and community punishment orders. The combined requirements remain a community punishment and rehabilitation order, including its maximum unpaid-work limit.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from justices who imposed a community punishment and rehabilitation order requiring 100 hours of unpaid work and two years’ supervision, followed consecutively by a separate community punishment order requiring a further 80 hours of unpaid work for driving while disqualified.

The central issue was whether the justices could impose the additional order, thereby requiring more unpaid work than would have been permitted under the statutory limit for a community punishment and rehabilitation order.

1. The appeal was allowed. The justices’ approach was unlawful.
2. Powers of Criminal Sentences (Sentencing Act) 2000, section 35(2), prohibits a community sentence from consisting of or including both a community rehabilitation order and a community punishment order. That provision reinforces, rather than exhausts, the restrictions imposed by section 51.
3. Section 51 applies by reference to the requirements imposed, not merely to the formal labels attached to separate orders. Where the court requires an offender both to be under supervision and to perform unpaid work, the requirements fall within section 51(1) and the resulting sentence is a community punishment and rehabilitation order.
4. The fact that the requirements were imposed in two consecutive orders was immaterial. The statutory maximum of 100 hours of unpaid work therefore applied, and requiring 180 hours breached section 51(1).
5. The limitation was consistent with Parliament’s concern that excessive unpaid work might damage the effect of supervision. The court referred to Gilding v Director of Public Prosecutions as supporting that approach, although it concerned different statutory provisions.
6. The matter was remitted to the justices because the additional offence was separate and they might need to consider an alternative disposal, including a financial penalty or disqualification.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal by way of case stated was allowed and the matter was remitted to the justices.
• Justices for the Commission Area of Humberside: imposed a community punishment and rehabilitation order followed consecutively by a community punishment order.