Hill, R. v

When a suspended sentence is activated, remand custody attributable to the original offence must be credited under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, unless a statutory exception applies. The sentencing court must identify any applicable exception in open court.

The court may activate less than the suspended term where the offender has complied with the order’s community requirements. Material compliance should be reflected in the activated period. A separate sentence for later serious offences may properly be consecutive where it is neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Hull Magistrates’ Court to assaulting a police officer and driving with excess alcohol. He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. He also admitted breaching a suspended sentence order imposed for unlawful wounding.

The Crown Court activated the whole 51-week suspended sentence and imposed concurrent four-month sentences for the new offences, consecutive to the activated term. The total was 51 weeks and four months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against sentence, contending that remand time and compliance with the supervision requirement had not been properly reflected.

1. The appeal was allowed. The original sentence was quashed and replaced with a total term of 12 months’ imprisonment.
2. The earlier wounding offence was governed by the suspended-sentence and remand-time provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. By section 240(7), the remand-credit provisions applied when the suspended sentence was activated. Under section 240(3), the judge was obliged to direct that remand custody for the earlier offence counted towards sentence unless an applicable statutory exception existed. No exception was relevant, and any such exception would have required explanation in open court.
3. The sentencing court could activate less than the whole suspended term after considering the offender’s compliance with its community requirements. The applicant had complied with the supervision requirement for about 18 months. That compliance should have reduced the period activated.
4. The later assault and excess-alcohol offences were serious. A total of four months’ imprisonment for them was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
5. The court activated eight months of the suspended sentence and ordered the four-month sentence for the later offences to run consecutively. One hundred days spent in custody on remand were to count towards the 12-month term. The two-year driving disqualification and extended re-test requirement remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted a total sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment: [2007] EWCA Crim 3188.
• Crown Court at Hull: Activated the whole 51-week suspended sentence and imposed a consecutive four-month term for the later offences.
• Hull Magistrates’ Court: The applicant pleaded guilty to assaulting a police officer and driving with excess alcohol, and was committed for sentence.