R v Sabrina Latty

A magistrates’ court cannot accept a guilty plea and commit an offence for sentence where the offence is indictable only and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires sending for trial. Where legislation does not specify the consequences of procedural error, the court must construe the statutory scheme. An error that goes to the root of jurisdiction is fundamental. It nullifies subsequent proceedings and cannot be cured by later steps. The Court of Appeal may sit as a Divisional Court, grant judicial review and quash the unlawful committal and conviction. It may then reopen the case, send it for trial and sentence afresh. In an exceptional case, the fresh sentence may be adjusted and made concurrent so that the appellant’s release date is not extended.

After pleading guilty at Bromley Magistrates’ Court to dwelling burglary, the applicant was committed for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The Crown Court at Woolwich imposed three months’ imprisonment consecutive to an existing sentence. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused by a single judge.

On renewal, the Court of Appeal identified that the three-strikes regime made the offence indictable only. The magistrates therefore should have sent the case for trial rather than accepting the plea and committing the applicant for sentence. The central issues were whether that procedural error invalidated the subsequent proceedings and what remedy was available.

Disposition. The court treated the renewed application as an application for judicial review, sat as a Divisional Court, quashed the committal for sentence and set aside the conviction. The case was then reopened, sent for trial, and the applicant was arraigned and pleaded guilty.

1. Because the applicant’s previous dwelling-burglary convictions engaged the three-strikes regime under the Sentencing Act 2020, the offence was triable only on indictment. Section 51(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was imperative where the statutory conditions applied. The magistrates therefore had no power to accept the plea, convict, or commit the applicant for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
2. Where legislation does not state the consequences of procedural error, the court must construe the statutory scheme to determine whether the error nullifies subsequent steps or can be remedied. The court relied on Butt [2023] EWCA Crim 1131 and Gould [2021] EWCA Crim 447; [2021] 1 WLR 4812. An error is fundamental where it goes to the root of the respective jurisdictions and deprives the later court of jurisdiction. Nothing thereafter can confer jurisdiction.
3. The unlawful plea and committal therefore nullified the committal and invalidated the Crown Court proceedings. The court sat as a Divisional Court under section 66 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, dispensed with service, extended time, granted permission and conducted a rolled-up hearing. It quashed the committal and conviction.
4. Goose J then sat as a District Judge under section 66 of the Courts Act 2003, reopened the case under section 142 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, and sent it for trial. He then sat as a Crown Court judge under section 8 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for arraignment and sentencing.
5. The fresh sentence was imposed concurrently with the sentence already being served. Although the statutory calculation produced 876 days after guilty-plea credit, an exceptional term of 426 days was imposed so as not to extend the applicant’s release date and to reflect the quashed consecutive sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), sitting as a Divisional Court — On renewal of the application for leave to appeal against sentence, identified the jurisdictional error, granted judicial review, quashed the committal and conviction, reopened and sent the case for trial, and imposed a fresh concurrent sentence.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal — Refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Woolwich — On 24 January 2025 imposed three months’ imprisonment consecutive to an existing sentence.
• Bromley Magistrates’ Court — Accepted the guilty plea and committed the applicant for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020; that process was later quashed.