Boyton, R v

When sentencing an offender for conveying a prohibited article into prison, the court should take account of a prison adjudication and punishment imposed for the same conduct. This avoids a double penalty. A custodial sentence may otherwise properly reflect the serious security, good-order and wider criminal-justice consequences of introducing a mobile telephone into prison.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Chelmsford to conveying a prohibited article into prison after a mobile telephone was found in clothing during his admission to HMP Chelmsford. The sentencing judge rejected his basis of plea and sentenced him on the basis that he had attempted to smuggle the telephone into prison.

He received six months’ imprisonment. His grounds challenged the starting point, credit for his guilty plea, mitigation, and medical circumstances. He had also pleaded guilty in a prison adjudication arising from the same telephone and received seven days’ loss of privileges.

The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly because the prison disciplinary penalty had not been taken into account.

1. Permission to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The sentence of six months’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with a sentence of 25 weeks’ imprisonment.

2. The court rejected the submission that there was no evidential basis for treating the telephone as operational. The telephone was an exhibit available for inspection, and there was no ground for concluding that the sentencing judge had erred by proceeding on that basis.

3. The court also held that, save for the prison adjudication, there was no arguable basis for saying that a starting point of nine months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The offence seriously undermined prison security, good order, prisoners’ welfare and rehabilitation, the course of justice, and the prevention and detection of crime.

4. However, the applicant had already admitted the prison disciplinary charge and received seven days’ loss of privileges for the same mobile telephone. That punishment should have been taken into account at sentence to avoid a possible double penalty. The sentencing judge had not referred to it.

5. The court therefore treated six months as 26 weeks and deducted one week to reflect the disciplinary penalty. The substituted sentence was 25 weeks’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Permission to appeal was granted. The court allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting 25 weeks’ imprisonment for six months.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford: The applicant pleaded guilty to conveying a prohibited article into prison and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.