R v Robert Wayne Worrell

Remand credit is governed by Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 240ZA(3), subject to subsections (4) to (6). Where remand custody overlaps detention for another matter, the day ordinarily cannot be credited, and any residual discretion to correct injustice requires a careful assessment of the facts. A standard-form sentencing direction does not exercise that discretion. There is no automatic COVID-related sentence reduction. Disparity between conspirators may be justified by materially different records, roles, risk, aggravating features and mitigation.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Portsmouth of conspiracy to kidnap. He was sentenced at the Crown Court at Winchester to an extended sentence of 13 years, comprising 10 years’ custody and a three-year extension period. He applied for leave to appeal against sentence, with applications to extend time, and sought an adjournment because counsel lacked access to the Digital Case System.

The proposed grounds concerned credit for time on remand, an alleged COVID-related reduction and sentence disparity with co-conspirators, including the decision to impose an extended sentence and the timing of sentence. The central issues were whether the statutory remand-credit rules or residual discretion had been misapplied, whether the alleged disparity was made out, and whether any ground disclosed an arguable case that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Applications refused. The court refused the adjournment and the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applications for extensions of time therefore did not arise.

1. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 240ZA(3), remand credit is subject to subsections (4) to (6). Subsection (4) excludes a day on which the offender was also detained for another matter. Subsection (5) permits a day to count towards only one sentence and only once. The court applied Phillips [2015] EWCA Crim 427 and Kerrigan [2014] EWCA Crim 2348 in recognising a residual discretion to correct a particular injustice, such as excessive delay. That discretion required a careful assessment of the facts and could not circumvent the statutory scheme.
2. The applicant’s remand for the index offence overlapped custody relating to licence recall and another sentence. The usual statutory consequences therefore applied. The standard-form statement that remand time would count did not demonstrate that the residual discretion had been exercised. The sentencing remarks contained no indication that a particular injustice had been considered, and no application for the discretion appeared to have been made.
3. The sentence for the index offence ran concurrently with the Plymouth sentence, applying the principle in Costello [2010] EWCA Crim 371. Postponing sentence was a legitimate approach in the circumstances and did not establish unfair disadvantage.
4. There was no rule requiring every sentence to be reduced for custody during COVID conditions. The longer the sentence, the less likely such a reduction was to be appropriate, as recognised in Fairclough [2021] EWCA Crim 1214. In any event, the applicant’s relevant custody began after pandemic conditions had ended.
5. The applicant’s repeated weapons-related offending, further serious offending shortly after release on licence, the risks identified in the pre-sentence report and the nature of the index offence justified treating him as dangerous and imposing an extended sentence. The differing roles, records, aggravating features and mitigation of the co-conspirators justified different sentences. The grounds disclosed no arguable basis for showing that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Crown Court at Portsmouth: The applicant was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to kidnap on 16 September 2021.
2. Crown Court at Winchester: On 9 February 2024, the applicant received an extended sentence of 13 years, comprising 10 years’ custody and a three-year extension period.
3. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused the adjournment and refused leave to appeal against sentence. The extension applications did not arise.