Clarke, R v

Where qualifying curfew credit is due, the sentencing court must direct under section 240A that the appropriate period counts as time served. An omitted mandatory direction may be corrected on appeal. The court may grant a substantial extension of time where correction is required in the interests of justice, while leaving the remainder of the sentence undisturbed.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Newport to conspiracy to supply class A controlled drugs. On 19 January 2018 he received 57 months’ detention in a young offender institution.

He had spent 155 days on qualifying curfew before sentence, entitling him to 78 days’ credit. The sentencing court omitted the required direction under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 240A. Nineteen months after the time limit, the applicant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal so that the omission could be corrected.

1. The extension of time was granted and the appeal was allowed to a limited extent. It was in the interests of justice to permit an appeal notwithstanding that the notice was about 19 months late.
2. Section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 required the sentencing court to direct that qualifying curfew credit counted as time served. The applicant was entitled to 78 days’ credit for 155 days spent on qualifying curfew.
3. The Court therefore directed that 78 days should count as time served as part of the sentence. It did not interfere with any other part of the 57-month sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted an extension of time and allowed the appeal to the limited extent of directing 78 days’ qualifying-curfew credit to count as time served.
• Crown Court at Newport: The applicant pleaded guilty on 3 November 2017 and, on 19 January 2018, was sentenced to 57 months’ detention in a young offender institution. The court omitted a direction for qualifying-curfew credit.