Ayhan, R. v

An error in the statutory basis recorded in a memorandum of conviction does not invalidate an otherwise lawful committal for sentence. The decisive question is whether the magistrates’ court had, and properly exercised, the relevant committal power. Where an either-way offence has been committed under section 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 6 permits associated summary-only offences to be committed. The Crown Court must sentence those summary-only offences within the powers available to the magistrates’ court. Any excess must be reduced to that jurisdictional limit.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to assault occasioning actual bodily harm, assault by beating, criminal damage, and threatening to kill his former wife. He was committed to the Crown Court and received a total sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment.

His application for leave to appeal against sentence was referred to the full court because the memorandum of conviction recorded a section 3 committal for two summary-only offences. The district judge and court clerk later confirmed that those offences had in fact been committed under section 6. The central issue was whether the inaccurate record invalidated the committal and affected the Crown Court’s sentencing jurisdiction.

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The total sentence was not excessive. The concurrent sentences for the summary-only offences did not exceed the powers available to the magistrates’ court and did not affect the overall term.

2. The validity of a committal does not depend on the statutory provision recorded in the later memorandum of conviction. It depends on the power which the magistrates’ court actually had and properly exercised. The memorandum is evidence of the committal, not the committal itself.

3. Section 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 provides the primary power to commit an offender convicted of an either-way offence to the Crown Court for sentence. Once that power has been properly exercised, section 6 permits the accompanying committal of summary-only offences. For those offences, the Crown Court may impose only a sentence which the magistrates’ court could have imposed.

4. The court followed R v Folkestone and Hythe Juvenile Court Justices, ex parte R (1982) 74 Cr App R 58, R v Hall (1982) 74 Cr App R 67, and R v Russell [1998] 2 Cr App R(S) 375. To the extent that R v Stockton [2009] EWCA Crim 354 and R v Buisson [2011] EWCA Crim 1841 appeared to depart from that approach, they should not be followed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The full court held that the inaccurate memorandum did not invalidate the committal and refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: The Recorder imposed concurrent sentences of 14, four and two months for the first three offences, and a consecutive eight-month sentence for threatening to kill, making 22 months’ imprisonment.
• Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court: The applicant pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.