Green, R. v

Where section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies, remand time must be credited against a sentence unless the court considers it just to withhold that direction. Remand on a different and unrelated charge cannot be credited as time remanded for a “related offence”. An offence is not related merely because it concerns the same offender; the charges must depend on the same facts or evidence.

An appellate court may quash and replace a sentence where the sentencing judge intended to allow full remand credit but the statutory scheme prevents that result. A detention and training order cannot carry an extended licence period. A sentence of detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 may do so.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Manchester Crown Court to two robberies, with a third robbery taken into consideration. For the later robbery, the judge initially imposed what was understood to be a two-year detention and training order with a two-year extended licence period. On reconsideration, the judge substituted two years’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, with a two-year extended licence period under section 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The judge intended that the applicant receive credit for all seven months spent on remand. Most of that period, however, related to the other robbery, for which no separate penalty had been imposed. The issue was whether the order gave effect to that intention in light of section 240 of the 2003 Act.

1. Appeal allowed. The court granted leave, quashed the existing sentence and substituted 12 months’ detention with an extended licence period of two years.

2. A detention and training order could not carry an extended licence period. Although detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 could be accompanied by an extended licence period under section 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the statutory rules governing remand credit applied differently.

3. Section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applied to the later robbery because it was committed after the provision came into force. It required a direction crediting days spent on remand for that offence, or a related offence, unless it was unjust to make one.

4. The earlier robbery was not a related offence for section 240(1). The robberies occurred on different occasions and were entirely unrelated apart from the applicant’s involvement. The charge for the earlier robbery did not depend on the same facts or evidence. Consequently, the period spent on remand for that offence could not be credited against the sentence for the later robbery.

5. The sentencing judge had intended to allow the whole remand period and had proceeded on the mistaken belief that it would automatically count. The original order could not achieve that intention. To give substantially the intended practical effect, the court substituted the shorter custodial term while retaining the two-year extended licence period.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 12 months’ detention with a two-year extended licence period: [2006] EWCA Crim 1632.
• Crown Court at Manchester: imposed two years’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, with a two-year extended licence period, after seeking to clarify the original sentence.