Munden v Southampton Crown Court

Where an appellant seeks to abandon a Crown Court appeal after the hearing has begun, leave should ordinarily be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The court may refuse abandonment where relevant considerations, including the need for a pre-sentence report and the possible suitability of a community order, justify continuing the appeal. Delay caused by obtaining the report does not, without more, make the circumstances exceptional. The court may consider the appellant’s potential rehabilitation and supervision, even where continued custody may extend beyond the period that would ordinarily follow credit for an early guilty plea.

The claimant pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and received a sentence of 23 weeks’ imprisonment. He appealed to the Crown Court, principally contending that insufficient credit had been given for his guilty plea.

During the Crown Court hearing, the court considered a pre-sentence report necessary, partly because a community order with supervision might be appropriate. The report would require approximately six weeks. The claimant then sought leave to abandon the appeal, but the Crown Court refused, applying the approach in R v Manchester Crown Court, Ex parte Welby and Another. The claimant sought judicial review of that refusal.

1. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Crown Court had been entitled to conclude that the circumstances were not exceptional and to refuse leave to abandon the appeal.

2. Rule 11 of the Crown Court Rules 1982 permits an appellant to abandon an appeal before the hearing by giving the required notice. Where the application is made after the hearing has begun, the approach in R v Manchester Crown Court, Ex parte Welby and Another requires exceptional circumstances before leave should be granted.

3. The Crown Court had considered the relevant matters with care. It was entitled to regard a pre-sentence report as necessary, including because the proper disposal might involve continuing supervision under a community order. The need for the report remained relevant notwithstanding the delay required to obtain it.

4. The fact that the delay might result in the claimant serving longer in custody than would ordinarily follow from credit for his early guilty plea did not make the circumstances exceptional. The decision was based on relevant considerations and was not unlawful.

5. Lord Justice Maurice Kay agreed. He noted that the possibility of a community order should not be excluded merely because preparation of the report caused delay. He also observed that the claimant could have applied for bail, although he did not prejudge the outcome of any such application.

• Southampton Magistrates’ Court: The claimant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 23 weeks’ imprisonment.
• Southampton Crown Court: The claimant appealed against sentence. The court refused leave to abandon the appeal and adjourned it to obtain a pre-sentence report.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The application for judicial review of that refusal was dismissed.