West Yorkshire Probation Board v Cruickshanks

Under a suspended sentence order, an information alleging breach of a community requirement must be laid before the end of the sentence’s operational period. The court need not hear the allegation before that period expires. An unpaid work requirement ordinarily must be completed within 12 months, subject to the statutory power of extension, but the supervision period cannot continue beyond the operational period. Work cannot therefore be required, and breach proceedings cannot properly be commenced, after the relevant supervision period has ended. Where circumstances provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance, the court may consider cancelling or amending the community requirements under Criminal Justice Act 2003. The appeal was dismissed because the summons concerned dates outside the supervision period and had itself been issued too late.

West Yorkshire Probation Board appealed by way of case stated from the decision of Mr Recorder Bury in the Crown Court at Bradford. The recorder dismissed a summons alleging that Wayne Cruickshanks had failed without reasonable excuse to perform unpaid work required by a suspended sentence order.

The order imposed an eight-month sentence of imprisonment suspended for 12 months, together with supervision and 150 hours of unpaid work. Mr Cruickshanks suffered a serious road traffic injury and did not complete the work during the relevant period. He later performed some work, but was summoned after the operational and supervision periods had expired for failing to attend on specified dates.

The central question was whether sections 200(2) and 200(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 prevented enforcement of the unpaid work requirement after expiry of the operational period without an extension under paragraph 18(1) of Schedule 12.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court answered the stated question in the affirmative and endorsed the recorder’s analysis of the statutory scheme.
2. A suspended sentence is a sentence of imprisonment whose implementation is deferred on conditions, including compliance with community requirements. The enforcement regime is mandatory and is intended to ensure that such requirements cannot be ignored with impunity.
3. Under paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 12 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, an information alleging breach of a community requirement must be laid before the end of the operational period. The resulting proceedings do not have to be heard before that period ends. Prompt notification is important because the offender must know of the risk while the suspended sentence remains operative.
4. Section 200 distinguishes suspended sentence orders from community orders. A community order remains in force until the specified unpaid work is completed, unless revoked. A suspended sentence order does not continue beyond its operational period. The supervision period continues only while unpaid work remains outstanding and cannot extend beyond the operational period.
5. In this case, the supervision and operational periods were both 12 months. An extension under paragraph 18 of Schedule 12 was therefore unavailable because the supervision period could not exceed the operational period. The dates specified in the summons were outside the supervision period, and the summons was issued after that period had expired.
6. The road traffic injury was capable of providing a reasonable excuse for the earlier non-compliance. In those circumstances, paragraph 13 of Schedule 12 permitted an application to cancel the community requirements, and paragraph 15 permitted amendment. The appropriate course, if breach proceedings were otherwise justified, would have been to set work dates within the supervision period and commence warning and breach procedures under paragraphs 4 and 5.
7. Mr Justice Cranston agreed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated dismissed; the question posed by the recorder was answered in the affirmative.
• Crown Court at Bradford: Mr Recorder Bury dismissed the summons, holding that the court had no power to deal with the alleged breaches because the order had lapsed.