AC-2025-LON-003228 - [2025] EWHC 2569 (Admin)

A number of questions arose. There were questions about whether the Judge could proceed to sentence the Claimant on the day, or whether sentencing ought to be deferred. The Claimant’s legal team made an application requesting a pre-sentence report. That was declined by the Judge on the basis of the view that immediate custody was inevitable. The defence team also asked for time to get a psychiatric report. The Judge agreed that this would be an appropriate course. It follows, for that reason alone, that sentencing was not going to take place on 22 September 2025. It would have to be at a later date. There was also an important set of questions about the factual basis on which the Claimant would be sentenced, in circumstances where there had been a trial. The defence team indicated that they were preparing a “basis of plea” document. In the event, that was available by lunchtime. The prosecution was able to respond to it and did so. There was, in light of the difference of the positions of prosecution and defence, the clear prospect of a Newton hearing to make findings as to relevant facts, which remained in prospect at 2.15pm in the afternoon when the case was called back on for a third time. The Judge had been told earlier in the day (at 10.15am) that the prosecution and the defence had very different positions on how Count 4 was to be categorised for the purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines. The prosecution’s position was Category 3/ Leading role. That category has a starting point of 4 years custody and a sentencing range up to 5 years custody. The defence’s position was that it was Category 4/ Significant Role. That has a starting point of a high-level community order and a range up to 26 weeks custody. One of the features of the case described in the prosecution’s Opening Note was a series of communications, which the prosecution was saying were relevant to Count 4. These communications came from 2022 and also from 2023.

All of that left the important question of bail. In fact there were two distinct questions relating to bail. One was a question about where the Claimant was going to go that night, from court, and be during the period up to his sentencing hearing. Was he going to go back home under bail conditions? Or was he going to a prison, on remand? That was the first question. There was another question. It was about where he was going to be during the court day on 22 September 2025. What was he going to be within the court building, waiting with his lawyers, able to discuss his case in a meeting room? Or was he going to be taken to the cells in the court building, where he would need to wait and be visited?