R v Anthony James Barrett

Where sentencing is delayed for reasons outside the defendant’s control, the sentencing court should identify the period of delay and reflect it in the final sentence. The sentence includes both custody and the subsequent licence period. Compensation must not reduce both elements, and is not automatically doubled to reflect early release. Time spent in custody following recall for breach of licence ordinarily does not count towards the later sentence. The approach in R v Saunderson [2020] EWCA Crim 1556 was applied and explained.

The applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply cocaine and was sentenced at the Crown Court at Northampton to 63 months’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge reduced the sentence by two years and six months under R v Saunderson [2020] EWCA Crim 1556 to reflect delay in sentencing which was not the applicant’s responsibility while he was recalled on licence.

The applicant sought an extension of 167 days to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. He argued that the reduction should be greater because early release meant that the practical reduction in custody was only half the reduction in the nominal sentence. The central issue was the proper method of reflecting non-defendant delay in sentencing.

Application refused. The court indicated that it would extend time if the proposed appeal had merit, but concluded that it did not.

1. The applicant had been recalled to custody while on licence after committing a further offence. The ordinary period of custody resulting from recall for breach of licence conditions does not count towards the sentence subsequently imposed. A further delay in sentencing, however, may be reflected where it results from factors wholly outside the defendant’s control.
2. The approach in R v Saunderson [2020] EWCA Crim 1556 did not establish an inevitable rule that the allowance for delay must be twice the period of delay in order to account for early release. The earlier decision reduced the overall sentence, while release from recall remained a matter for the Parole Board.
3. The correct approach is for the sentencing court to identify the period of delay attributable to matters outside the defendant’s control and take it into account when fixing the final sentence. The sentence comprises both the custodial period and the subsequent period on licence. A court cannot compensate for the delay by reducing both elements.
4. The sentencing judge had adopted that approach in allowing a reduction of two years and six months. There was no error in the calculation and no merit in the proposed appeal. The court declined to extend time for applying for leave to appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The applicant sought an extension of 167 days to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. The court found no merit in the proposed appeal and declined to extend time.
• Crown Court at Northampton — Following a guilty plea to conspiracy to supply cocaine, the applicant was sentenced on 14 February 2024 to 63 months’ imprisonment. The sentence included a two-year-six-month reduction for non-defendant delay in sentencing.