R v Ashden Williams

For credit under section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the absence of installed electronic monitoring equipment does not alone defeat a qualifying-curfew deduction where the failure arose from the state’s monitoring process. If the prosecution disputes the qualifying days, it bears the burden of proof to the criminal standard. Where resolving a modest dispute would involve a disproportionate use of time and expense, the dispute should be resolved in the defendant’s favour. The court applied that approach where only three days were disputed and ordered the full 143-day deduction.

The applicant was convicted at Maidstone Crown Court of being concerned in the supply of a Class A controlled drug and failing to surrender to custody. On 13 February 2023 he received sentences of 50 months and four weeks’ imprisonment respectively, reduced by 118 days spent on remand.

It later emerged that he had been subject to a qualifying electronically monitored curfew for 285 days while on bail. The monitoring equipment had not been installed, and alleged breaches had not resulted in proceedings because monitoring reports were sent to the wrong police force. The applicant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence. The central issue was whether credit should be given under section 240 A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020, despite the disputed breaches and lack of installation.

Disposition. Time was extended by 470 days. Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal was allowed to the extent that 143 days were directed to be deducted from the sentence under section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

1. The relevant curfew period was 285 days. Applying section 325 would produce a 143-day reduction. The absence of an installed monitoring device did not, by itself, defeat the claim for credit. The Crown accepted the continuing effect of R v Sothilingham [2023] EWCA Crim 485, although it argued that evidence of breaches distinguished the present case.
2. The court followed the approach in R v Barrie Hoggard [2013] EWCA Crim 1024. Where the prosecution disputes the number of qualifying-curfew days, it must prove its case to the criminal standard. If resolving the dispute, or part of it, would probably involve a disproportionate use of time and expense, the dispute should be resolved in the defendant’s favour. That approach is particularly apt where the number of days in dispute is modest.
3. The net disputed credit was three days, which would affect the sentence by only two days. Resolving the alleged breaches would therefore be disproportionate. The court accordingly included the disputed period in the credit calculation and directed that the full 143 days be deducted.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Extended time, granted leave to appeal, and allowed the appeal to the extent of directing a 143-day deduction under section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
2. Maidstone Crown Court: Convicted the applicant following trial and sentenced him on 13 February 2023 to 50 months’ and four weeks’ imprisonment respectively, less 118 days spent on remand.