Day, R v

Where an offender is committed to the Crown Court for sentence under section 6 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the Crown Court remains subject to the sentencing limits that would have applied in the magistrates’ court for each offence. A sentence exceeding the applicable single-offence limit is unlawful and must be corrected on appeal.

When activating a suspended sentence, the court must also give effect to qualifying curfew credit available under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The appellant was sentenced in the Crown Court at Wood Green to a total of 21 months’ imprisonment for burglary, thefts and attempted theft, including the consecutive activation of a six-month suspended sentence.

The parties and sentencing judge proceeded on the basis that the burglary had been committed for sentence because the magistrates’ powers were insufficient. In fact, the committal was under section 6 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, because the suspended sentence imposed by the Crown Court also required determination there.

The central issues were whether the 12-month burglary sentence was lawful and whether the activated suspended sentence required credit for qualifying curfew days.

1. Appeal allowed. The 12-month sentence for burglary was unlawful. The appellant had been committed for sentence under section 6 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, rather than because the magistrates considered their powers insufficient.
2. By section 7(1) of that Act, a Crown Court sentencing under that committal route must observe the limits applicable in the magistrates’ court, including the maximum sentence for an individual offence. The maximum custodial term for the burglary was therefore six months.
3. The court resentenced the appellant. The custody threshold was plainly passed in light of the offending, the breach of the suspended sentence and his extensive record. It substituted six months’ imprisonment for burglary. The three-month concurrent terms for the theft and attempted theft remained consecutive to the burglary term, producing nine months’ imprisonment before activation of the suspended sentence.
4. The six-month suspended sentence was properly activated consecutively. However, section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 required credit for qualifying curfew days completed before the suspended sentence order. The appellant had completed 168 such days, requiring a reduction of 84 days from the activated term.
5. The resulting sentence was 15 months’ imprisonment, subject to the 84-day reduction from the activated suspended-sentence term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a lawful sentence.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: On 2 May 2018, imposed a total sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment, including a 12-month term for burglary and consecutive activation of a six-month suspended sentence.