![[2025] EWCA Crim 1112](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_sHeHK8V.png){kind=logo}
The Sentencing Hearing
The Sentencing Hearing
In the course of submissions the judge referred to the present offence being committed "relatively approximate in time" to the offences for which he had been sentenced in June 2024. The judge recognised that the course proposed by HHJ Newbury was "wildly unusual" and checked with the prosecution, who correctly confirmed that a conditional discharge was a disposal that was open to him if he was satisfied that section 314 exceptional circumstances were present.
It was effectively common ground that this offence too fell within category 1B. The prosecution told the judge that there was "no real justifiable reason" for the delay between the receipt of the SFR report in early 2023 and the date of the charging of the offender some 2 years later. It was said that there had been exchanges of an incomplete file between the police and the CPS "which added to the delay".
In the light of the indications that have been given no substantive submissions were made in mitigation. In the course of submissions the judge said:
"... it seems to me, given that he must be on licence for more than three years, a conditional discharge for three years is actually the appropriate way to deal with this because then if he does commit further offences it is not just a recall, which may be a 28 day recall for him, given the change that has been announced by probation, he can also get re-sentenced for this and get a number of years imprisonment, so that is what is worth, part of the situation he finds himself in."
The judge in sentencing the offender referred to his "terrible" record and categorised this as being a category 1B offence. He referred to the sentence that would have been appropriate after a trial, making a clear reference to section 314. He then said:
"... but it seems to me that would be wholly unjust to do so because you have been expecting to be released relatively shortly and if it were not for these proceedings having now been taken, you would not have to concern yourself with that. You were interviewed back at the start of 2023. You, of course, did not assist the police. In fact, quite the opposite in that interview but the matter was submitted for charge to the CPS in December 2023 and there is no possible reason that could be put forward or has been put forward as to why it took so long, so I have got the situation we are in now. You spent a long time in prison. I am sure that Mr Edwards [who was his counsel] would be able to set out in more detail than he started to, the positive efforts you have taken whilst in prison to try and ensure that you do not go back to prison. In any event, when you are released, you will be liable to recall to prison if you do not co-operate with the terms of your licence or if you commit further offences, so what should I do with you? Give you a further prison sentence, which I have to cut down drastically it seems to me, to take account of the fact of the six year and three-month sentence or alternatively, take a different course, that which was outlined by Judge Newbury on the last occasion. It seems to me that in circumstances of this case, there are exceptional circumstances not to apply the mandatory minimum but actually, it is expedient to impose punishment upon you today and I emphasise today the reason I will come onto. It seems to me the appropriate way to dispose of this case is a conditional discharge for a period of three years, it is the maximum period allowed."
The judge then explained the consequences that would follow if the offender were to reoffend during the period of discharge.