R v Jason Nelson

A suspended sentence order can be activated only once. Once activation has occurred, the order’s effect is exhausted and a later court cannot lawfully activate it again. A sentence imposed on the basis that the order remains available is unlawful to that extent and must be quashed, while the remainder remains intact. The case also emphasises the sentencing risks created by inaccurate criminal-record data. Where the Police National Computer appears accurate and no party is on notice of an error, reliance on it at sentencing may be reasonable. Serious failures in record keeping should be investigated.

The applicant pleaded guilty to several offences and received suspended custodial sentences from a magistrates’ court. After a later theft conviction, one of those sentences was activated in full, but the activation was not recorded on the Police National Computer. When the applicant was subsequently sentenced in the Crown Court for further burglaries, the court treated the suspended sentence as still available and activated three months of it consecutively. The central issue was whether that second activation was lawful.

1. Extension and leave. The court granted the necessary extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence.
2. First activation. The magistrates’ court had activated in full the 16-week sentence imposed for one of the burglary offences. Although the records were imperfect, the Common Platform Records and Court Records established that the activation had occurred in March 2024.
3. Second activation unlawful. A suspended sentence order could be activated only once. Its effect was therefore exhausted before the Crown Court sentencing in January 2025. The Crown Court’s additional activation of three months was wrong in principle and unlawful.
4. Disposition. The appeal was allowed and the additional three-month term was quashed. The two years and six months imposed for the later burglaries, and the remainder of the sentence, were unaffected.
5. Record keeping. The failure to record the earlier conviction, sentence and activation on the Police National Computer was an error by the State capable of having significant consequences. The sentencing hearing itself was not open to criticism because prosecution counsel had reasonably relied on apparently accurate information and the defence had no notice of the error. The court considered that those directly responsible for the Police National Computer should investigate the failure, given its critical role in the sentencing regime.

• Crown Court at Manchester: On 10 January 2025, HHJ Davies imposed a total sentence of two years and six months for three burglaries and activated three months of the earlier suspended sentence consecutively.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and quashed the additional activation.