R v Jack Poulson & Ors

Under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, sentencing review jurisdiction arises only where the offender has been convicted of at least one offence within the statutory scheme. Where an indictment includes both qualifying and non-qualifying offences, the case may be referred and, if leave is granted, all sentences may be reviewed. The jurisdiction does not extend to a person convicted only of offences outside the scheme. The statutory language and the policy of confining the power to offences selected by Parliament support that limit.

The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer sentences imposed by the Crown Court at Liverpool on ten defendants. The preliminary issue concerned Harvie Aspden, who had been sentenced for two offences under section 13(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Those offences were not listed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Reviews of Sentencing) Order 2006, although the corresponding adult offence was listed.

The Attorney General relied on Attorney General's Reference No 32 of 2004 [2004] EWCA Crim 2644 and R v Clews [2019] EWCA Crim 769, submitting that the statutory scheme extended to a case in which none of the offender’s convictions was for a listed offence. The central issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to review such a sentence.

The court refused leave to refer the sentence imposed on Harvie Aspden and, alternatively, dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction.

1. Statutory threshold. The words of sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are clear. A person can be subject to sentencing review only if convicted of at least one offence falling specifically within the relevant statutory provisions. This literal construction also reflected the policy that a person convicted only of offences which Parliament had excluded from the scheme should not be subjected to the review power.
2. Scope of earlier authorities. The court treated Attorney General's Reference No 32 of 2004 [2004] EWCA Crim 2644 and R v Clews [2019] EWCA Crim 769 as establishing that, where at least one conviction falls within the scheme and other convictions do not, the case may be referred and all sentences may then be reviewed. The Attorney General’s submission in the present case was a significant extension of those decisions, which the court declined to make.
3. Application. Aspden’s convictions were for offences under section 13(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That offence was not listed in the 2006 Order. Since he had no conviction for an offence within the statutory scheme, the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused leave to refer Aspden’s sentence and alternatively dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction: [2025] EWCA Crim 1242.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: His Honour Judge Simon Medland KC sentenced Aspden for two offences under section 13(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Attorney General sought a statutory sentencing reference.