R v Thomas Schreiber

In a sentence appeal concerning offences involving fatalities, the Court of Appeal should ordinarily ensure that the prosecution is represented before determining the substantive appeal. This enables the court to be properly informed, including about views expressed by victims’ family members where they wish to address the sentence. The importance and sensitivity of those views may justify adjourning an appeal even after leave has been granted.

The applicant had been convicted of murder, attempted murder and dangerous driving. He received life imprisonment for murder, with a minimum term of 36 years less 253 days spent on remand.

On a renewed application, the Court granted leave to appeal against sentence. The prosecution had declined to attend the leave application but wished to attend any substantive appeal. No prosecuting advocate could be arranged for the hearing that day.

The court had also received a recent statement from the victim of count 2, the applicant’s mother, concerning the sentence. The issue was whether the substantive appeal could properly proceed without prosecution representation and full attention to such matters.

1. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, together with a representation order for leading counsel alone. The court applied its established practice that sentence appeals should normally be argued by a single advocate for the appellant.

2. The court did not determine the substantive appeal. In cases involving fatalities, R v Palmer [2017] EWCA Crim 471 and paragraph 39A.7 of the Practice Direction identify the desirability of prosecution representation.

3. Although the prosecution wished to attend a substantive hearing, it could not be represented that day. The court had unsuccessfully explored whether prosecuting counsel could participate, including remotely. It was therefore unable to determine the appeal fairly at that hearing.

4. The views of the families of both victims were of considerable importance. A recent statement by the victim of count 2, who was the applicant’s mother, addressed the sentence imposed. The court did not decide whether that statement was admissible, but held that the appeal court should be fully informed of any family member’s views where they wish to express them.

5. Given the sensitivity of the case, the substantive appeal was adjourned to another day, when the prosecution could be represented and those matters fully addressed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave to appeal against sentence and adjourned the substantive appeal: [2022] EWCA Crim 1750.

• Original proceedings: Following convictions for murder, attempted murder and dangerous driving, the applicant received life imprisonment for murder with a minimum term of 36 years, less 253 days on remand.