R v Caydon Hutchinson

[2024] EWCA Crim 1682

Case details

Case citations
[2024] EWCA Crim 1682
Court
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Judgment date
13 November 2024
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Criminal Sentencing Criminal procedure
Keywords
sentencing jurisdiction reopening appellate determination detention in a young offender institution Sentencing Code section 250 qualifying curfew time served Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 240A
Outcome
determination reopened; sentence substituted
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

A criminal appellate court may reopen its determination to correct a sentencing error. Where the offender’s age means that the court lacked power to impose the sentence previously ordered, that sentence must be set aside and replaced with a lawful sentence. The court may also make the statutory time-served direction applicable to qualifying curfew bail.

Factual background

The appellant’s appeal had been heard and determined by the Court of Appeal on 3 October 2024. The appeal was allowed and the sentence below was quashed, but the court purported to impose three years’ detention in a young offender institution. The court later identified that, because of the appellant’s age at conviction, it had no power to impose that sentence. The issue was whether the determination should be reopened and a lawful sentence substituted.

Held

  1. Determination reopened. The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Holroyde and Garnham J, reopened its earlier determination to correct the sentencing error.
  2. Invalid sentence set aside. The court had purported to impose three years’ detention in a young offender institution. Because of the appellant’s age at the date of conviction, the court had no power to impose that sentence.
  3. Lawful sentence substituted. The previous sentence was set aside and replaced by a sentence of three years’ detention pursuant to section 250 of the Sentencing Code.
  4. Time-served direction. Pursuant to section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court directed that 198 days should count as time served, reflecting the period during which the appellant had been on bail subject to a qualifying curfew.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the appeal was heard and determined on 3 October 2024. The appeal was allowed and the sentence imposed below was quashed, but an unlawful sentence was purportedly substituted.
  2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): by the present decision, the determination was reopened, the earlier sentence was set aside and a lawful sentence was substituted: [2024] EWCA Crim 1682.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
determination reopened; sentence substituted

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.