R v Harley Scamp

Where time spent on remand materially exceeds the custodial sentence that would otherwise have been imposed, adding a punitive requirement to a community sentence may make the sentence manifestly excessive. The court must compare the custodial equivalent of the remand period with the aggregate sentence required by totality, taking account of overlapping remand periods. If the remand time has already supplied the punitive element required by the overall sentence, a requirement for unpaid work may be quashed while rehabilitative requirements and the remainder of the sentence remain in force.

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery, two offences of using threatening behaviour with intent to cause fear of violence, and possessing an article with a blade or point in a public place. The offences were committed when he was aged 17, save for one offence committed after he turned 18.

The Crown Court at Canterbury imposed concurrent two-year community orders, including 80 hours of unpaid work and a rehabilitation requirement of up to 45 days. The appellant had spent 277 days in custody on remand, equivalent under automatic release provisions to more than 18 months served. With leave, he appealed to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on the ground that the unpaid-work requirement made the sentence manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the punitive element remained justified after credit for the time spent on remand.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the requirement to undertake 80 hours of unpaid work was quashed. The remainder of the concurrent community orders and the rehabilitation requirement remained unaltered.

2. The sentencing judge had correctly assessed the four counts separately, including the applicable guideline categories, guilty-plea reductions, aggravating and mitigating features, and the appellant’s age. It was open to the judge to treat the lengthy remand period as an exceptional circumstance for the bladed-article offence, despite the previous relevant conviction.

3. Before determining the final sentence, the judge should have aggregated the individual sentences and considered totality. The separate sentences amounted to one year and 12 weeks. A modest totality reduction might have produced an overall custodial sentence of approximately 13 to 14 months.

4. The appellant had in fact spent 277 days on remand. After applying the relevant automatic release provisions, this represented at least 554 days, or just over 18 months. The remand periods overlapped, but the credited total still exceeded by approximately 20 to 25 per cent the time that would have been served for an immediate custodial sentence reflecting the overall offending.

5. Although concurrent community sentences with a rehabilitation requirement were an appropriate way to meet the overall justice of the case, the unpaid-work requirement added a punitive element which was manifestly excessive. The time already spent in custody more than sufficiently fulfilled the punitive element required by the overall sentence. The appeal was therefore allowed in part.

• Crown Court at Canterbury: The appellant pleaded guilty and received concurrent two-year community orders for four offences, including 80 hours of unpaid work and a rehabilitation requirement of up to 45 days.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On appeal, the requirement for unpaid work was quashed, while the remainder of the sentence was preserved: [2025] EWCA Crim 765.