R v Sean Chibueze John

Time spent on remand to local authority care under section 91(3) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 does not automatically count towards a later custodial sentence. A sentencing court may make a discretionary reduction only where the interests of justice require it, having assessed the length and restrictive nature of the remand conditions.

Credit may be appropriate by analogy where the conditions are equivalent to a qualifying curfew. Any further allowance is fact-specific, likely to be rare, and is not a mathematical exercise. A requirement to live and sleep at directed accommodation, without a curfew or conditions approaching detention, does not of itself require a reduction.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Harrow of three rapes of a child under 13, eight sexual assaults of a child under 13, and causing a child to watch a sexual act. He was aged 17 at conviction and received concurrent detention terms totalling six and a half years.

He had spent 214 days on remand to local authority care under section 91(3) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The sentencing judge stated that this time would count towards the sentence. The Prison Service did not give such credit. After granting extensions of time and leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether the judge had erred and whether the interests of justice required a downward adjustment.

1. The court granted the necessary extensions of time and leave to appeal, but dismissed the appeal against sentence.

2. A remand to youth detention accommodation under section 91(4) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 attracts automatic credit. A remand to local authority care under section 91(3) does not. Credit for the latter can arise only through a judicial reduction of sentence in the interests of justice. Any judge making such a decision must identify the period to count and declare it in accordance with the statutory scheme.

3. Applying R v A [2019] EWCA Crim 106, the court held that the sentencing judge had mistakenly assumed that the remand period would be deducted administratively. His remarks did not show that he had made and declared a discretionary judicial allowance.

4. The error did not itself require a reduced sentence. The proper question was whether a reduction was now required in the interests of justice. Under R v D and H [2016] EWCA Crim 1807, credit may be given by analogy where section 91(3) conditions are equivalent to a qualifying curfew. R v A confirmed that further credit depends on the particular facts, including the remand’s length and restrictiveness, and will rarely be appropriate.

5. The applicant was never detained in custody and was subject to no curfew. The requirement to remain overnight at directed accommodation was materially different from a qualifying curfew. Although the conditions imposed restrictions, they did not formally go far beyond ordinary conditional bail and did not approach detention. The available evidence also showed family contact, football, music studies and supportive networks during the remand.

6. No further reduction was required in the interests of justice. The original sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): extensions of time and leave to appeal were granted, but the appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 511.

• Crown Court at Harrow: following conviction on 25 May 2022, His Honour Judge Cole imposed concurrent detention terms on 8 July 2022, totalling six and a half years.