R v Jordan Ian Linsay

When a court imposes driving disqualification alongside imprisonment, the statutory extension or uplift must be calculated under the applicable provisions, while any discretionary period must remain no longer than necessary. A subsequent change to the prisoner’s release date does not retrospectively make a lawful sentence manifestly excessive. Neither release under a later early-release scheme nor release on Home Detention Curfew can found an appeal where the sentence was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive when imposed. The possibility of Home Detention Curfew is speculative at sentencing and must not affect the discretionary period or the statutory uplift. Where the SDS40 scheme is known at sentencing, it may inform the discretionary period or the s 35B uplift so that the appropriate disqualification is served in the community.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Oxford Crown Court to drug-supply, perverting-the-course-of-justice and motoring offences. On 19 March 2024 the recorder imposed total custodial sentences of 40 months and disqualified him from driving for 26 months.

After sentence, the SDS40 scheme altered the applicant’s expected release on licence, and he was also released earlier under Home Detention Curfew. He argued that the resulting period of disqualification at liberty had become manifestly excessive and that s 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 permitted the court to resentence him in light of current circumstances. The issues were whether those subsequent events justified intervention and whether the sentencing record required correction.

1. Outcome. Time was extended, leave to appeal and a representation order were granted, but the challenge failed. The 26-month disqualification remained in force. The Crown Court record was directed to show six months’ discretionary disqualification, a one-month extension under s 35A and a 19-month uplift under s 35B.

2. Sentencing approach. The guidance in R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455 remains applicable. Disqualification protects the public, punishes and deters, but should not exceed what is necessary and its effects on employment should be considered. The statutory provisions aim to ensure that disqualification is served in the community rather than during custody.

3. Where SDS40 applies and imprisonment relates to the same offence as the disqualification, the s 35A extension remains applicable, but the discretionary period may be reduced, subject to any statutory minimum. Where imprisonment is for a different offence and s 35B applies, an uplift equivalent to 40% of the custodial sentence will normally suffice when that is the period to be served in custody. This was the approach identified in R v Ashman [2025] EWC Crim 1091.

4. Home Detention Curfew is early release on licence under s 246 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Its possibility cannot affect the s 35A extension, the s 35B uplift or the discretionary disqualification period, because the later decision depends on circumstances assessed at that time. The approach in R v Parkin [2020] EWCA Crim 614 supported that conclusion.

5. The Court of Appeal Criminal Division is a court of review. It considers whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive on the material before the sentencing court, together with any admissible further material. It does not conduct a fresh sentencing exercise based on later developments in the penal system. The approach in R v Roberts [2016] EWCA Crim 71 therefore provided a complete answer to the applicant’s argument.

6. The recorder had erred only in expressing the 20-month statutory component as a single s 35A extension. The total period was maintained, but the record required correction to identify its proper statutory components.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The applicant appealed from sentence at Oxford Crown Court and sought an extension of time. Time was extended and leave granted, but the challenge to the disqualification failed. The sentence stood subject to correction of the Crown Court record.
• Oxford Crown Court: On 19 March 2024, Recorder Alex Young imposed total custodial sentences of 40 months and a 26-month driving disqualification.