Anderson. R. v

A defective certificate of committal does not invalidate committal for sentence where the magistrates’ court had jurisdiction to commit the offender. However, the Crown Court’s sentencing powers remain limited by the statutory basis and circumstances of the committal.

Sentences exceeding the applicable magistrates’ maximum are unlawful and must be quashed. Where a suspended sentence order is before the Crown Court under Schedule 12, it must deal with the breach in a statutory manner and cannot take no action. A victim surcharge imposed without statutory power must also be quashed.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to theft, going equipped to steal and obstructing a police officer. The offending occurred during the operational period of a suspended sentence order. The magistrates committed him to the Crown Court, where he also asked for ten further thefts to be taken into account.

Worcester Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences of 30 months’ imprisonment for theft, a concurrent sentence for going equipped, took no action on the suspended sentence breach, and imposed a victim surcharge. The appellant appealed against sentence. The Registrar referred the application to the Full Court because of concerns that the sentences and orders were unlawful.

1. Appeal allowed. The magistrates’ certificate of committal was defective, but this did not deprive Worcester Crown Court of jurisdiction. The magistrates had jurisdiction to commit both the suspended-sentence breach and the new offences. Applying R v Murat Ayhan [2011] EWCA Crim 3184, an inaccuracy in the memorandum of conviction does not invalidate a committal where the magistrates’ court possessed the necessary jurisdiction.

2. The error nevertheless mattered to sentence. The magistrates had stated that, but for the breach, they would have dealt with the new offences within their own powers. The Crown Court’s powers for those offences were therefore limited to the magistrates’ maximum: six months for any one either-way offence and 12 months in total. The 30-month theft sentences and 24-month sentence for going equipped were unlawful and were quashed.

3. Under paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 12 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Crown Court could not take no action on the suspended sentence breach. It had to deal with the appellant in one of the prescribed ways. The suspended sentence was activated, but reduced to six months because of some compliance with its terms.

4. The victim surcharge order was also unlawful. The original offence fell within the period governed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge (No 2)) Order 2007, and the original sentence had contained no fine. On the court’s application of R v Hemsworth [2013] EWCA Crim 916, the Crown Court had no power to impose the surcharge.

5. The court substituted concurrent terms of six months for the thefts and a consecutive six months for going equipped. The activated six-month term was consecutive, producing a total of 18 months’ imprisonment. The no-separate-penalty order for obstruction was confirmed and the surcharge was quashed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the unlawful sentences and victim surcharge, and substituted a total sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.

• Worcester Crown Court On 4 October 2013 imposed a total of 30 months’ imprisonment, took no action on the suspended sentence breach, and imposed a victim surcharge.

• South Worcestershire Magistrates’ Court On 6 September 2013 accepted guilty pleas and committed the appellant to the Crown Court because the offences had been committed during the operational period of a suspended sentence order.