R v Tyler Fewery

Where a magistrates’ court imposes consecutive terms for two or more summary offences, their aggregate must not exceed six months under section 133(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1990, irrespective of the number of offences. The exception for either-way offences tried summarily does not apply to an aggregate composed solely of summary offences.

An appellate court must quash a sentence imposed beyond that statutory power. Under section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, it may substitute a lawful sentence which the court below could have imposed, provided that, taking the case as a whole, the appellant is not dealt with more severely.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to six summary assault offences arising from domestic abuse and to a public-order offence. On 11 March 2024, the Crown Court imposed consecutive terms totalling 15 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, with requirements and a restraining order.

After the appellant breached the restraining order, the Crown Court activated the suspended sentence in full and imposed a consecutive month’s imprisonment for the breach. The appellant sought extensions of time and leave to appeal both sentences. The central issue was whether the original aggregate suspended sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for summary offences and, if so, the consequences for its activation and resentencing.

1. The court granted extensions of time and leave to appeal in both matters. It allowed both appeals, because the original 15-month suspended sentence was unlawful.

2. Section 133(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1990 limits the aggregate of consecutive custodial terms imposed for two or more summary offences to six months. The limit applies regardless of the number of summary offences. Section 133(2) permits a larger aggregate, up to 12 months, only in the stated circumstances involving either-way offences tried summarily. The court’s reading was supported by R v King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court ex parte Hyam (10 March 1992, CO/1320/91) and R v Jex [2021] EWCA Crim 1708.

3. The appellant’s offences were all summary-only. The Recorder therefore lacked power to impose a 15-month aggregate term, and that sentence was quashed. Applying section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the court resentenced him to concurrent terms, producing an overall term of 21 weeks’ imprisonment. It suspended that term for 18 months without requirements, as activation had to be addressed immediately. The surcharge was reduced from £187 to £154.

4. The subsequent activation of the unlawful 15-month suspended sentence was also quashed. The court activated the substituted 21-week sentence in full: the prompt and flagrant breach of the restraining order meant that full activation was not unjust. It resentenced the appellant for that breach to 10 weeks’ imprisonment consecutively. This did not infringe section 11(3), because the substituted and activated suspended term was substantially lower than the original term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeals in [2025] EWCA Crim 126. It quashed the unlawful 15-month suspended sentence and the later activation, substituted a 21-week suspended sentence, activated it in full, and imposed 10 weeks’ consecutive imprisonment for breach of the restraining order.

• Crown Court at Preston: On 11 March 2024, imposed a 15-month suspended sentence for summary offences. On 24 May 2024, activated that sentence in full following a breach of a restraining order and imposed one month’s consecutive imprisonment for the breach.