Patmore, R. v

An escape from custody will ordinarily attract a custodial sentence which is consecutive to the sentence already being served, so that the offence carries a real additional penalty and deterrence is maintained. Sentence must nevertheless reflect the individual circumstances.

Relevant matters include planning, violence or damage, the reason for escape, surrender, time at large, subsequent conduct, prior escapes, and breach of the trust inherent in open conditions. Where the escape itself will have an exceptionally serious practical penal consequence, such as a substantial loss of likely parole time, the court may reduce the term and exceptionally order it to run concurrently. The overall punishment must not be excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Manchester to escape from Sudbury Open Prison, where he was a category D prisoner preparing for possible parole in 2011. He had previously received a consecutive 18-month sentence for an earlier escape.

He walked out of the open prison after receiving information which caused concern about his partner. He remained unlawfully at large for about three months. On being located, he initially fled and was pursued, but later came down from a roof and surrendered without violence. He made full admissions and committed no further offences while at large.

He was sentenced to imprisonment consecutive to his existing term. He appealed against sentence, contending that its length and consecutivity were excessive, particularly because the escape would itself substantially postpone his release on parole.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence described in the operative part of the judgment as 21 months’ imprisonment consecutive to the existing term. It substituted 15 months’ imprisonment, to run concurrently.

2. Escape from custody is serious. It undermines public confidence in the prison service and ordinarily requires a consecutive custodial sentence with a deterrent element. This prevents an offender from serving no additional time for the escape.

3. In fixing the appropriate term, the court applied the factors identified in Purchase [2007] EWCA Crim. 1740. The appellant’s personal reason for leaving, absence of advance planning, force, damage or confederates, absence of further offending, eventual non-violent surrender, and early guilty plea mitigated sentence. The three months at large, his earlier escape, his departure from a trusted open prison, and failure to surrender after addressing his family concern aggravated it.

4. The decisive additional consideration was that the escape would itself cause an effective increase of about three years in time spent in prison through loss of parole prospects. In those circumstances, a consecutive sentence would make the overall punishment too high. A 15-month concurrent sentence properly reflected both deterrence and totality.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 15 months’ imprisonment to run concurrently with the existing term.

• Crown Court at Manchester: Following a guilty plea to escape, imposed imprisonment consecutive to the sentence already being served. No citation is stated in the judgment.