Pilkington, R. v

Where section 265 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies, a court has no power to direct that a sentence for a substantive offence run consecutively to an extant sentence being served following recall to prison while on licence. The proper order is that the new sentence run concurrently with the existing sentence.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Manchester Crown Court to manslaughter and received a sentence of five years and four months’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge directed that term to run consecutively to a burglary sentence which the applicant was then serving after recall to prison while on licence.

The Registrar referred applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence. The issue was whether the consecutive direction was lawful under section 265 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

1. Appeal allowed. The court granted leave to appeal and varied the sentence.
2. Section 265 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 precluded the sentencing judge from ordering the manslaughter sentence to run consecutively to the sentence then being served following recall on licence. The court treated R v Smith [2009] EWCA Crim. 1779 as confirming that result.
3. The illegality concerned the direction for consecutive service, not the length of the sentence imposed for manslaughter. The sentence of five years and four months’ imprisonment was therefore ordered to run concurrently with the existing sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal to the extent of varying the sentence so that it ran concurrently with the existing sentence.
• Manchester Crown Court: following a guilty plea to manslaughter, imposed five years and four months’ imprisonment and directed it to run consecutively to an existing sentence being served after recall on licence.