Bodman, R v

On resentencing after revocation of a community order, the court must assess credit for qualifying remand time under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 240, by reference to all circumstances at the resentencing hearing. The court need not disregard events since the original order or recreate the original sentencing exercise. Where remand time was expressly taken into account in imposing the original community order, it may be just to refuse further credit on resentencing. Sentences imposed after breach must nevertheless reflect an early guilty plea, the extent of compliance with the order, applicable guidance and the totality principle.

The applicant pleaded guilty in 2009 to five non-dwelling burglaries and five burglaries with intent. He received an 18-month community order, including supervision and drug rehabilitation requirements.

After committing a dwelling-house burglary in 2010, he was returned to the Crown Court at Reading. The judge revoked the community order, imposed 30 months’ imprisonment concurrently for the 2009 offences, and imposed a consecutive 18-month term for the 2010 offence. Six further offences were taken into consideration, producing a total of four years’ imprisonment.

The applicant challenged the length and totality of the sentence. He also contended that he should receive credit for 114 days spent on remand before the original community order.

1. The court granted leave and allowed the appeal to a limited extent. The total sentence was reduced from four years to three years.
2. The court declined to follow R v Stickley [2008] 2 Cr App R(S) 33. Paragraphs 10 and 23 of Schedule 8 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did not require a court resentencing after revocation of a community order to ignore events since the original order or to recreate the original sentencing exercise.
3. The proper focus was section 240 of the Act. Credit for qualifying remand time was ordinarily required, unless it would be unjust in all the circumstances to grant it. That required an evaluation of the circumstances as they existed at resentencing.
4. It was open to the judge to refuse credit for the earlier 114 days. At the original hearing, the judge had made clear that he was treating that period as a factor supporting a community order rather than immediate custody. Giving further credit on resentencing would therefore not have been just.
5. The 18-month consecutive term for the 2010 dwelling-house burglary was not manifestly excessive. However, the 30-month concurrent terms for the 2009 non-dwelling burglaries were too long. The court gave effect to the early guilty pleas, some compliance with the community order, the relevant guideline and overall totality by substituting concurrent terms of 18 months. The 72 days credited for remand in 2010 remained credited.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal against sentence was granted and the appeal was allowed in part: [2010] EWCA Crim 3284.
• Crown Court at Reading: On 5 July 2010, following revocation of the community order, the judge imposed concurrent terms of 30 months for the 2009 offences and a consecutive term of 18 months for the 2010 dwelling-house burglary.
• Crown Court at Reading: In September 2009, the applicant received an 18-month community order for the ten non-dwelling burglary offences.