Brett, R. v

A custodial sentence for repeat theft offending was not manifestly excessive where the offender had numerous comparable convictions, committed the offences while on licence, and committed one offence when he should have been attending court for the other.

Where an offender is recalled under section 254 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 because of an offence committed after that Act came into force, a new custodial sentence cannot be ordered to run consecutively to the custodial period then being served if that would contravene section 265. The new sentence takes effect when it is passed.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court to two theft offences and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. On 25 January 2007, Cardiff Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment; a further theft was taken into consideration.

He had a long record of theft offending connected with drug addiction. The offences were committed after his release on licence from a burglary sentence, and he was recalled to custody. After a single judge refused leave, he renewed his application to appeal sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

The court also considered the effect of the recall on the commencement of the new sentences.

1. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The concurrent sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment were not manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to take account of the applicant’s extensive record of comparable theft convictions. The offences were committed while he was on licence. The second was committed when he should have been at court in connection with the first. Those matters, considered with the nature of the offences, justified the sentences imposed.

3. The court clarified the statutory effect of the recall. The applicant had been recalled under section 254 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for offending committed after that Act came into force. In those circumstances, an order directing the new custodial sentence to run consecutively to the expiration of the custodial period then being served would contravene section 265 of that Act.

4. Accordingly, notwithstanding the apparent understanding of the sentencing judge, the 18-month sentence took effect on the date it was passed, rather than at the conclusion of the burglary sentence imposed on 31 March 2006.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

• Crown Court at Cardiff: on 25 January 2007, imposed 18 months’ imprisonment on each of two theft counts, concurrent.

• Cardiff Magistrates’ Court: on 4 January 2007, accepted guilty pleas to two theft offences and committed the applicant to the Crown Court for sentence.