Noble, R. v

A person who fails to attend in answer to a summons cannot commit an offence under section 6 of the Bail Act unless he was on bail. A conviction for contempt also requires knowledge of the summons and an intention to defy the court. Neglect in failing to notify a change of address may breach a community order, but it does not establish contempt where the summons was not received.

When resentencing for breach of a community punishment order, the court must assess the overall proportionality of the revised order. Material matters include work already completed, absences accepted as validly excused, time spent in custody before sentence, and work performed under the replacement order.

The appellant had pleaded guilty to theft of gas and received a 200-hour community punishment order. He completed about 80 hours. After moving address without informing probation, he did not receive interview letters or a summons alleging breach of the order.

When he did not attend the Crown Court on 7 September 2007, a warrant was issued. At a later hearing, the Crown Court revoked the original order and imposed 240 hours' community service. It also imposed a concurrent 240-hour order for his failure to attend the summons.

The appellant appealed both the finding relating to non-attendance and the revised sentence for breach of the original order.

1. Appeal allowed. The finding and sentence for failure to attend on 7 September 2007 were quashed. The appellant was not on bail when he failed to attend, so the matter could not be an offence under section 6 of the Bail Act.
2. The conduct could not amount to contempt of court. Although the appellant had negligently failed to notify his new address, he had not been served with, and knew nothing of, the summons. He therefore lacked the knowledge and intention necessary for contempt.
3. The court noted that confusion between a Bail Act offence and contempt in these circumstances was not uncommon. It stressed the need for care where a person has failed to attend but had no notice of the hearing or was not on bail.
4. The 240-hour community service order imposed on resentencing for breach of the original order was manifestly excessive. The court took account of the 80 hours already completed, the probation service's acceptance that many absences were validly excused, the 12 days spent in custody before final disposal, the limited nature of the original dishonesty offence, and work already completed under the new order.
5. The order was varied from 240 hours to 80 hours. Hours completed since the later order was imposed were to count towards its discharge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal, quashed the finding and sentence for failure to attend, and reduced the replacement community service order from 240 to 80 hours.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: On 26 September 2007, revoked the 2005 community punishment order and imposed 240 hours' community service; it also imposed a concurrent 240-hour order for failure to attend the earlier hearing.