R v Dwayne Yearwood

Where a sentencing court is limited to the powers of a magistrates’ court, the jurisdictional maximum applies to the sentence ultimately imposed. It does not restrict the starting point or intermediate adjustments made for seriousness, aggravating and mitigating features, a guilty plea, or totality. Accordingly, the maximum sentence may properly be imposed even after substantial mitigation and an early guilty plea have been taken into account. For an either-way offence, the limit is six months per offence, subject to the aggregate limit for consecutive terms. The statutory framework and guilty plea guideline do not require the final sentence to fall below that maximum.

The applicant breached a stalking protection order on two occasions and pleaded guilty at the first hearing in the Magistrates’ Court. He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under the Sentencing Code in respect of those offences after related offences were sent for trial and later discontinued. The Magistrates’ Court made no statement under section 18(4). Recorder Palmer KC therefore had only the sentencing powers available to the Magistrates’ Court, but imposed an aggregate sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.

The applicant argued that the six-month limit on each offence, combined with credit for his early guilty plea, required a total sentence of eight months. The issue was whether the structured sentencing exercise had to produce a sentence below the jurisdictional maximum because mitigation and plea credit had been allowed for.

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

1. Because the Magistrates’ Court had committed the applicant under section 18(1) of the Sentencing Code without making the statement contemplated by section 18(4), sections 21(4) and (5) confined the Crown Court to the powers of the Magistrates’ Court. Section 224 limited the sentence to six months’ imprisonment on each either-way offence. Section 133(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 permitted consecutive terms producing an aggregate maximum of 12 months.
2. The statutory limits applied to the sentence ultimately imposed. They did not restrict the starting point or the adjustments made before the final sentence was reached. The sentencing process properly involved assessing seriousness by reference to harm and culpability, selecting the category and starting point, adjusting for aggravating and mitigating features, allowing credit for the guilty plea under section 73 and the Sentencing Council’s guideline, and applying totality where there was more than one offence.
3. The judge was entitled to assess the sentence after trial at 18 months, reduce it by one-third for the plea, and impose 12 months. The final sentence complied with both the six-month limit per offence and the 12-month aggregate limit. Substantial mitigation and an early guilty plea did not require a sentence below the jurisdictional maximum.
4. The approach was consistent with R v Nico Burke [2022] EWCA Crim 1537. The sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 29 August 2024, refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Crown Court at Wood Green: On 2 July 2024, Recorder Palmer KC sentenced the applicant to 12 months’ imprisonment for two breaches of a stalking protection order following committal for sentence under the Sentencing Code.