R v Jamie Jenkins

On a de novo sentencing appeal, the appellate court may leave the length of sentence unchanged while varying an order that it run consecutively, so that it runs concurrently. The court must reconsider the applicable sentencing classification. A concurrent sentence takes effect from the date on which it was first pronounced and may be fully served by the time of the appeal.

The appellant received a 16-week sentence in the Magistrates’ Court on 3 March 2020 after throwing objects, including a two-litre bottle of milk, at a nurse in a medium secure mental health unit. The sentence was ordered to run consecutively to an IPP sentence.

In associated proceedings, the Court had quashed the IPP sentence and replaced it with a hospital order with restrictions, and had varied two later Crown Court sentences: [2025] EWCA Crim 1657. The present hearing concerned the fourth sentence and was conducted as a de novo appeal. The central issues were the sentence classification, the sentence length and whether the sentence should remain consecutive.

The appeal was allowed. The 16-week sentence was left unchanged in length but the order that it run consecutively was removed.

1. De novo hearing. For the purposes of the appeal, one judge sat as a Crown Court judge and the other two judges sat as District Judges (Magistrates’ Court) under section 66 of the Courts Act 2003. The court heard the facts afresh and received submissions on sentence, culpability and harm.
2. Guideline classification. The court reached the same conclusion as the Magistrates’ Court that the offence fell within culpability B and harm category 2 under the applicable Sentencing Council Guideline. It did not interfere with the 16-week term.
3. Concurrent sentence. The court declined to maintain the order that the sentence run consecutively to the IPP sentence. The sentence therefore ran concurrently from 3 March 2020, the date on which it was first pronounced, and was fully served.
4. The necessary extension of time was granted and leave was given. The appeal was allowed to the limited extent of removing the consecutive order. The remainder of the sentence was unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In the associated judgment [2025] EWCA Crim 1657, the Court quashed the IPP sentence, replaced it with a hospital order with restrictions, and varied two later Crown Court sentences.
• Magistrates’ Court — On 3 March 2020, a sentence of 16 weeks was imposed and ordered to run consecutively to the IPP sentence.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The present Court granted the extension of time, allowed the appeal and removed the order for consecutive running.