R v Luke Begg

Errors in recording a committal do not invalidate it where the magistrates had an available statutory power which, if exercised, would have lawfully given effect to their clear intention. Paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 16 to the Sentencing Act 2020 concerns the suspended sentence and breach proceedings; it does not commit a new offence for sentence. Where qualifying curfew has not been credited at sentence, the court must calculate and direct the statutory credit, being one-half of the days spent on qualifying curfew.

The appellant was convicted by magistrates of assault by beating of an emergency worker committed during the operational period of a suspended Crown Court sentence. He was committed to the Crown Court, where he received five months’ imprisonment for the new offence and a consecutive reduced term of 16 months on activation of the suspended sentence.

The sending sheet referred to paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 16 to the Sentencing Act 2020, but the breach was omitted from the Court Register and the provision cited did not confer power to commit the new offence for sentence. The appeal concerned correction of the committal record and statutory credit for 302 days of qualifying curfew.

1. Committal. The reference to paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 16 to the Sentencing Act 2020 could not itself commit the new assault for sentence. That provision operated to bring the appellant before the Crown Court to deal with the offence for which the suspended sentence had been imposed, and supported committal for breach of the suspended sentence. The new offence should have been committed for sentence under section 14 or section 20 of the Act.
2. The errors were errors of recording. They did not invalidate the committals because a statutory power was available which, if exercised, would have given lawful effect to the magistrates’ evident intention: by analogy, R v Ayhan [2011] EWCA Crim 3184. The court directed that the committals be treated as though correctly made and recorded, and confirmed their validity.
3. Curfew credit. The prosecution confirmed that the appellant had spent 302 days on qualifying curfew. Under section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the court was required to direct that the statutory credit count as time served. The credit was one-half of the qualifying-curfew period, namely 151 days.
4. The court stated the correction and credit in open court so that the necessary adjustment could be made to the sentence. No issue arose concerning the length of the sentence itself.

• Crown Court at Canterbury: On 28 September 2022, imposed five months’ imprisonment for the assault and activated the suspended sentence for a consecutive reduced term of 16 months, making 21 months in total.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Corrected and validated the committals and directed credit of 151 days for qualifying curfew.