Zeca, R. v

Where a suspended sentence order is breached by a further offence, the extent of the offender’s compliance with its community requirements remains material to both whether imprisonment should be activated and, if it is activated, whether the whole or only part of the suspended term should be imposed. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 12, paragraph 8(3), the court must activate the original or a lesser term unless activation would be unjust in all the circumstances. Completed requirements may therefore justify a reduced activation even though the further offence is serious and activation remains appropriate.

The appellant had received a 12-month suspended sentence order for burglary, with requirements to perform 150 hours’ unpaid work and attend a Think First Programme. He complied with both requirements.

During the operational period he committed robbery. At Snaresbrook Crown Court he received three years’ imprisonment for robbery, and the suspended 12-month term was activated in full and made consecutive, producing a total of four years’ imprisonment.

He appealed against sentence. He contended that the robbery sentence was excessive and that the sentencing judge had failed to recognise his completed unpaid-work requirement when activating the suspended sentence. The central issue was the effect of completed community requirements on activation following a further offence.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The court upheld the three-year sentence for robbery. In light of the appellant’s previous convictions and the circumstances of the robbery, that sentence was not manifestly excessive.

2. A suspended sentence order may be breached either by non-compliance with its community requirements or by a further offence during its operational period. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 12, paragraph 8(2), the court has powers including activation for the original or a lesser term. Paragraph 8(3) requires activation for the original or a lesser term unless that would be unjust in all the circumstances, expressly including the extent of compliance with the original community requirements.

3. The court held that this statutory consideration applies not only to the decision whether to activate the suspended sentence at all, but also to the choice between full and partial activation. The Sentencing Guidelines Council’s guidance, New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003, accurately reflected that approach.

4. The sentencing remarks did not show that the deputy judge had considered the appellant’s completed unpaid-work requirement. Although the further robbery justified activation, the limited progress under the order required recognition. The court quashed the 12-month activated term and substituted six months’ imprisonment, consecutive to the robbery sentence. The total sentence was therefore three and a half years’ imprisonment, with credit for 118 days on remand.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2009] EWCA Crim 133, allowed the sentence appeal in part. It upheld the three-year robbery sentence but reduced the consecutive activated suspended term from 12 months to six months.

• Snaresbrook Crown Court: The deputy judge imposed three years’ imprisonment for robbery and activated the 12-month suspended sentence in full and consecutively, making four years’ imprisonment in total.