Purchase, R. v

In sentencing an unassisted escape from custody motivated by personal pressure, the appropriate sentence will ordinarily be measured in months rather than years. The court should assess the degree of planning, any violence or damage, the reason for escape, whether the offender surrendered or arranged to surrender, the period at large, and offending committed while at large. A family-related motive and absence of violence do not necessarily make a consecutive sentence excessive where the offender remains unlawfully at large and commits further crime.

The appellant escaped from an open prison on 22 February 2007 while serving a sentence with about three months left to run. He said that family circumstances, including the difficulty of visits after his transfer from London to Kent, caused him to leave. He remained at large for about 15 days, did not surrender, and committed further offences while travelling to Poole.

At Bournemouth Crown Court, on 20 April 2007, he pleaded guilty to escape and received nine months’ imprisonment, consecutive to his existing sentence. He appealed against sentence, relying on earlier escape cases in which sentences had been reduced.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the consecutive sentence of nine months’ imprisonment for escape.

2. Escape cases broadly fall into two sentencing categories. An unassisted prisoner who leaves custody because of personal pressure ordinarily receives a sentence measured in months. Escapes arranged with assistance for professional criminals are materially more serious and attract sentences measured in years.

3. Within the first category, the sentencing court must assess the circumstances of the escape. Relevant matters include planning, violence or damage, the reason for leaving custody, any surrender or arrangement to surrender, the time spent at large, and further conduct while at large.

4. The appellant had undertaken no great planning and, because he left an open prison, used no violence and caused no damage. His family concerns were understandable but commonplace among prisoners. He was unlawfully at large for more than a fortnight, made no attempt to surrender, and committed crime to travel to his family. Those matters justified the sentence despite the more favourable circumstances in the authorities relied upon.

5. There was nothing to criticise in the sentencing judge’s assessment of length. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the consecutive sentence of nine months’ imprisonment for escape.

• Bournemouth Crown Court: on 20 April 2007, following a guilty plea to escape, imposed nine months’ imprisonment consecutive to the sentence then being served.