Hicks, R (on the application of) v R. Court At Snaresbrook & Anor

A sentencing court cannot retrospectively convert a direction under section 240(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 into a direction under section 240(4) after the statutory correction period has expired. Administrative correction is permitted only for an error in calculating the number of days, where the judge made that qualification clear. A reduced-credit decision is distinct, must be made judicially, and must be explained in open court. Challenges concerning remand credit are integral to sentence and should ordinarily be pursued in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

The claimant was sentenced by the Crown Court to five years’ imprisonment and was initially credited with 162 days spent on remand. The Crown Court later amended the order, without a hearing or judicial decision, so that only 102 days counted. The reduction reflected a period during which the claimant was serving an earlier sentence after revocation of his licence.

The claimant sought judicial review, challenging the legality of the amendment and the court’s jurisdiction. The issues were whether the original sentencing remarks permitted administrative correction and whether the dispute should instead be treated as a criminal appeal.

1. The 2005 Rules excluded the period during which the claimant was serving an earlier sentence. Accordingly, only 102 days were substantively creditable, although that did not determine whether the later amendment was lawful.
2. The sentencing judge’s qualification concerned possible error in calculating the number of days. It did not authorise administrative replacement of a section 240(3) direction with a section 240(4) direction. Section 240(6) required a reduced-credit decision to be stated in open court, with its statutory basis and circumstances explained.
3. A section 240(3) direction could not be changed into a section 240(4) direction outside the 56-day period in section 155 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The amendment was therefore unlawful. The 2005 Rules left no discretion to credit days concurrent with an earlier sentence.
4. Although an order made without jurisdiction may be amenable to judicial review, disputes concerning remand credit are integral to sentence and should ordinarily be litigated by appeal. The court reconstituted itself as the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), treated the proceedings as an appeal with leave and extended time, allowed the appeal, and substituted 162 days for 102 days.

The proceedings began as a judicial review claim concerning the Crown Court’s amended order. The court reconstituted itself as the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), treated the proceedings as an appeal with leave and extended time, allowed the appeal, and substituted the original credit of 162 days.