Hester-Wox, R. v

[2016] EWCA Crim 1397

Case details

Case citations
[2016] EWCA Crim 1397
Court
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Judgment date
31 August 2016
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Criminal Sentencing Suspended sentences
Keywords
summary-only offences Crown Court sentencing powers consecutive sentences six-month aggregate limit activation of suspended sentence unlawful sentence obstructing a constable guilty pleas victim surcharge
Outcome
appeal allowed in part (total sentence reduced to 12 months’ imprisonment)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

When the Crown Court sentences summary-only offences committed to it under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, it is subject to the sentencing limits which would have applied in the magistrates’ court. Consecutive terms for those offences may not exceed six months in aggregate.

Activation of a suspended sentence is instead the enforcement of a sentence already imposed. It is not the imposition of a new term of imprisonment for the purpose of the consecutive-sentence limit in Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. A lawfully activated suspended sentence may therefore run consecutively to the lawful aggregate sentence for later summary-only offences.

Factual background

The appellant pleaded guilty to nine summary offences, including threatening communications, public-order offending, common assault, failures to surrender and obstructing a constable. The magistrates committed the summary offences to the Crown Court for sentence under section 6 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. His further offending also brought him before the Crown Court for breach of an earlier suspended sentence.

At York Crown Court, the judge activated the eight-month suspended sentence and imposed further consecutive sentences, producing a total of 18 months’ imprisonment. The Registrar identified apparent sentencing errors and referred the application for leave to appeal to the full court. The issue was whether the individual and aggregate statutory limits rendered parts of the sentence unlawful, and whether the six-month magistrates’ aggregate limit also prevented the activated suspended sentence from being consecutive.

Held

  1. Appeal allowed in part. The court granted leave and corrected several unlawful sentencing orders. The four-month sentence for obstructing a constable contrary to section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996 exceeded its one-month maximum. It was quashed and replaced with one month’s imprisonment, concurrent with the other sentences.

  2. The summary-only offences committed under section 6 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 had to be dealt with as if sentenced in the magistrates’ court. Their consecutive aggregate could not exceed six months. The ten-month total originally imposed for those offences was therefore unlawful. The court ordered all sentences on S163 to run concurrently with the sentences on S162 and S164, but made the two-month sentence on offence 4 of S162 consecutive to the other S162 sentences. This produced a lawful six-month aggregate for the later summary offences.

  3. The original eight-month suspended sentence was also unlawful. The two common-assault counts had been included on the indictment under section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but section 40(2) restricted the Crown Court to magistrates’ sentencing powers. The maximum aggregate was six months. The court quashed the eight-month suspended sentence and substituted one of six months.

  4. Following R v Chamberlain (1992) 13 Cr.App.R (S) 525, activation of a suspended sentence does not impose a new sentence of imprisonment. The aggregate limit in section 133 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 therefore did not prevent the activated six-month sentence from running consecutively to the six months for the later summary offences. Paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 12 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 concerned appeal rights only and did not alter that conclusion.

  5. The total sentence was reduced to 12 months’ imprisonment. The restraining order remained in force. The court subsequently fixed the victim surcharge at £80.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted leave and allowed the sentence appeal in part, varying unlawful sentences and reducing the total term from 18 to 12 months’ imprisonment: [2016] EWCA Crim 1397.
  • Crown Court at York: on 21 June 2016 activated an eight-month suspended sentence and imposed further sentences for the committed summary offences, totalling 18 months’ imprisonment.
  • Magistrates’ Court: committed the appellant’s summary offences to the Crown Court for sentence under section 6 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
appeal allowed in part (total sentence reduced to 12 months’ imprisonment)

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.