R v Christopher Clark

A Magistrates’ Court must follow the mandatory plea procedure for an either-way offence. Where a defendant pleads guilty, a purported sending of that charge for trial is invalid and does not confer sentencing jurisdiction on the Crown Court. The sending sheet is the primary record of the Magistrates’ Court’s action.

Once the Magistrates’ Court has made its order, it is functus officio. The Crown Court cannot use section 66 of the Courts Act 2003 to correct an invalid sending. Following a Divisional Court order quashing the sending, however, the section 66 power may regularise an omitted committal where no procedural protection is lost and no prejudice arises.

In sentencing for breach of a restraining order, serious offending, relevant antecedents and offending immediately after release may justify an upward move outside the guideline category range without double counting.

The appellant had pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to breaching a restraining order and not guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Magistrates’ Court nevertheless recorded both charges as sent to the Crown Court for trial.

In the Crown Court, he later pleaded guilty to common assault. He received two years’ imprisonment for the breach and a concurrent three months for common assault. On his appeal against sentence, the Registrar raised whether the defective sending deprived the Crown Court of jurisdiction to sentence for the breach.

The Court therefore considered both the validity of the sending and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The purported sending of the breach charge for trial was plainly invalid. The appellant had entered a guilty plea, so the Magistrates’ Court should have recorded a conviction and considered committal for sentence under the Sentencing Act 2020.

2. The sending sheet was the primary record. It did not show that the mandatory procedure under section 17A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 had been followed. This was not merely an administrative error in citing the wrong statutory provision. A guilty plea was incompatible with a sending for trial and the invalid sending conferred no jurisdiction on the Crown Court.

3. Applying R v Gould [2021] EWCA Crim 447, the Magistrates’ Court became functus officio after making the sending order. Neither it nor the Crown Court could use section 66 of the Courts Act 2003 to correct that invalid order. Quashing was for the Divisional Court. The court therefore granted permission for judicial review, quashed the sending of the breach charge, and set aside the Crown Court sentence for that charge.

4. After quashing the sending, the court could sit as a magistrates’ court and use section 66 to cure the omission by committing the breach charge for sentence. A valid guilty plea had been entered. Committal was inevitable because the magistrates’ sentencing powers were insufficient, and the step caused no prejudice or loss of procedural protection.

5. On re-sentencing, the breach was properly assessed as a high-culpability, category 2 offence. The appellant’s contact, attendance at the victim’s home, return shortly afterwards, and violent and humiliating conduct showed persistence and serious breach. Similar previous offending against the same victim, commission within hours of release on licence, and the associated assault justified a starting point outside the category range. Those features did not amount to double counting or resentencing for earlier offences.

6. The court imposed two years’ imprisonment for breach and three months for common assault, concurrently, treated as imposed on 21 November 2022. A replacement indefinite restraining order and a £187 victim surcharge were imposed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 309, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence. Sitting additionally as a Divisional Court, it quashed the invalid Magistrates’ Court sending for trial. It then regularised the committal and re-sentenced the appellant.
• Crown Court at Minshull Street, Manchester: On 21 November 2022, the judge imposed two years’ imprisonment for breach of a restraining order and three months’ imprisonment for common assault, concurrently. The sentence for the breach was without jurisdiction because of the invalid sending.
• Greater Manchester Magistrates’ Court: On 4 July 2022, the appellant pleaded guilty to breach of a restraining order and not guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court purported to send both charges for trial.