R v Winston Thomas Papalaka

Where a determinate sentence is imposed on an offender convicted on or after 1 December 2020, Sentencing Act 2020, section 325 requires credit to be specified for time remanded on bail subject to a qualifying curfew. The credit is available even where the electronic tag was not fitted because of administrative error. Sections 325 and 326 do not require the monitoring device to have been functioning. The court must calculate and direct the applicable credit.

The appellant pleaded guilty to burglary and was sentenced to 54 months’ custody in the Crown Court at Cambridge on 29 July 2024. The sentencing judge did not specify credit for a qualifying curfew because the electronic tag required by the bail condition had never been fitted. Following further legal research, the appellant sought correction, but the period for correction under the slip rule had expired.

With leave, the appellant appealed on the single issue whether time spent subject to the qualifying curfew had to be credited under section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for the purposes of section 240 A of the Criminal Justice Act.

The appeal was allowed and the omission in the sentence credit was corrected.

1. For offenders convicted on or after 1 December 2020, section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires a court imposing a determinate sentence to specify the credit period for the purposes of section 240 A of the Criminal Justice Act, where the offender was remanded on bail subject to a qualifying curfew.
2. The court applied R v Sothilingham [2023] EWCA Crim 485. Where a qualifying curfew has been ordered, credit is due even if the electronic tag was not fitted because of administrative error. Sections 325 and 326 of the Sentencing Act 2020 do not import a requirement that the monitoring device be functioning.
3. The parties agreed that the appellant had spent 411 days subject to a qualifying curfew. Halving that period produced a credit of 206 days. The court certified the 411 days and directed that 206 days count towards the sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On an appeal brought with leave, the court corrected the sentencing omission, certified 411 days spent subject to a qualifying curfew and directed that 206 days count towards sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 877.
• Crown Court at Cambridge — The appellant was sentenced to 54 months’ custody on 29 July 2024 after pleading guilty to burglary. No credit was specified for the qualifying curfew.