Ruth v R

Where an adult charged with an either-way offence indicates a guilty plea, the statutory plea-before-venue procedure treats the proceedings as a summary trial. It creates a deemed guilty plea but does not itself create a conviction. Under section 9(3), the magistrates retain the option to convict.

If the magistrates instead send the charge for trial and no indictment is preferred in the Crown Court, there is no conviction, arraignment or plea upon which the Crown Court may sentence. Any sentence imposed for that charge must be quashed. A sentence imposed for breach of a conditional discharge also cannot stand if it depended upon that nonexistent conviction.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Exeter to conspiracies to cause criminal damage and to send malicious communications. While on bail awaiting sentence, he was charged with possessing a knuckleduster and a ball and chain.

The magistrates sent the ball-and-chain charge for trial and purported to send the knuckleduster charge as a related offence. The Crown Court treated the latter as a committal for sentence, although no indictment was preferred and no conviction had been recorded. The judge imposed a total of 33 months’ detention, including ten months for the knuckleduster and four months for breach of a conditional discharge.

On appeal, the appellant challenged both the severity of the sentences and the Crown Court’s power to sentence him for the knuckleduster offence.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The sentences for possession of the knuckleduster and for the purported breach of the conditional discharge were quashed. The sentences for the two conspiracy counts remained in place, producing a substituted total sentence of 19 months’ detention.
2. The court applied the statutory procedure governing an adult charged with an either-way offence. The appellant’s indication that he would plead guilty to the knuckleduster charge meant that the magistrates had to proceed as if the matter had been a summary trial. Although this produced a deemed guilty plea, section 9(3) of the 1980 Act made conviction an option for the magistrates; it did not make conviction automatic.
3. The magistrates did not convict the appellant. Their order instead sent both weapon charges to the Crown Court for trial. The route taken for the ball-and-chain charge was available, but the knuckleduster charge was wrongly sent as a related offence. No indictment concerning either weapon charge was then preferred in the Crown Court, and the appellant was not arraigned or called upon to plead.
4. Accordingly, there was neither a magistrates’ conviction nor a valid Crown Court process upon which a sentence for the knuckleduster could rest. Section 4 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 could not assist because its power to commit for sentence depended upon a conviction, which had not occurred.
5. Without a conviction for an offence committed during the conditional-discharge period, the judge had no basis to re-sentence the appellant for the earlier burglary. That sentence was therefore also quashed.
6. The remaining sentences were not manifestly excessive. The criminal-damage conspiracy involved extensive damage and racially aggravated features. The malicious communications threatened places of worship and were particularly serious. The court therefore left the consecutive sentences on counts 1 and 2 undisturbed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Allowed the sentence appeal in part and substituted a total sentence of 19 months’ detention.
• Crown Court at Exeter — On 20 September 2013, imposed a total of 33 months’ detention, including sentences for the knuckleduster charge and for breach of a conditional discharge.
• South and West Devon Magistrates’ Court — Sent the ball-and-chain charge for trial and purported to send the knuckleduster charge as a related offence, without recording a conviction for the latter.