Sutton, R. v

Failure to surrender to bail is a serious breach of a court order. A failure relating to a plea and case management hearing may be less serious than absence from a trial, particularly where the offender ultimately surrenders. Nevertheless, a material custodial sentence may be proper where the offender knew of the obligation to attend, offers no explanation beyond disorganisation, and has previously failed to surrender after receiving lenient treatment. An appellate court will not interfere with such a sentence unless it is manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty to failing to surrender to bail for a plea and case management hearing on an indictment for supplying a class A drug. HHJ Hoffman, sitting at the Crown Court at York, imposed 28 days’ imprisonment.

The appellant had ultimately surrendered to the police, but had twice previously failed to surrender to custody and had received no separate penalty on either occasion. He appealed against sentence, contending that the hearing missed was not a trial and that a lesser, notional sentence should have been imposed. The issue was whether 28 days’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the 28-day sentence was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court recorded that, under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, the appellant had an automatic right to appeal in this bail matter and did not require leave. The availability of that appeal did not create a substantive sentencing issue of principle.

3. Failure to comply with a court order to attend is serious. The missed hearing was a plea and case management hearing rather than a trial. That reduced the practical consequences when compared with an absence that would inconvenience witnesses at a trial. The appellant’s eventual surrender also meant that this was not the most serious type of bail offence.

4. Those mitigatory features did not make custody excessive. The appellant knew his obligations, had twice previously failed to surrender, and had been treated mercifully on both occasions. He offered no explanation beyond the disorganisation that had accompanied the earlier breaches. A substantive and material period of custody was therefore required to mark his third breach.

5. The court accordingly upheld the sentencing judge’s assessment and dismissed the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed: [2006] EWCA Crim 1487.
• Crown Court at York: HHJ Hoffman imposed 28 days’ imprisonment following the appellant’s guilty plea to failure to surrender to bail.