Smalley, R. v

Where an offender is sentenced for bail offences as well as the substantive offence, the bail offences should ordinarily be punished by consecutive sentences. They do not ordinarily justify withholding credit, under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, for time spent on remand. Save in exceptional circumstances, credit should be given for that period.

An appellate court may reduce a custodial sentence for burglary where it is excessive after proper regard to the offender’s immediate admissions and age.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Derby to burglary and asked for two further burglaries to be taken into consideration. He initially received a community order with supervision, drug rehabilitation and a substance-abuse programme.

After breaches of that order and two failures to attend court, the Crown Court revoked the order and imposed two years and six months’ detention in a young offender institution for burglary. It imposed concurrent sentences for the bail offences and directed that 45 days spent on remand should not count towards sentence under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

He appealed against sentence. The issues were whether the detention term was excessive and whether credit for remand custody could properly be refused because of the bail offences.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence for burglary was excessive and was reduced from two years and six months to 18 months’ detention in a young offender institution.

2. The appellant’s immediate admissions of guilt and his age, 20, required a lower custodial term. Detention was nevertheless inevitable because he had failed to comply with the opportunity afforded by the community order and had previous convictions for theft, burglary and handling.

3. The Crown Court’s reason for refusing remand credit under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was circular and illogical. The bail offences were a reason to impose consecutive sentences for those offences; they were not, without more, a reason to deny credit for time in custody on remand.

4. Save in exceptional circumstances, the usual order should allow credit under section 240. The two sentences for the bail offences remained in force but were ordered to run consecutively to the 18-month burglary sentence. The 45 days spent on remand were ordered to count towards that sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and varied the Crown Court’s sentencing order.
• Crown Court at Derby: On 2 February 2007, revoked the community order, imposed two years and six months’ detention for burglary, imposed sentences for bail offences, and refused remand credit under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.