BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Leitch & Ors, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 563 (22 May 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2024/563.html Cite as: [2024] EWCA Crim 563, [2024] 1 WLR 4102, [2024] WLR 4102, [2024] WLR(D) 257 |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [View ICLR summary: [2024] WLR(D) 257] [Buy ICLR report: [2024] 1 WLR 4102] [Help]
202303997 A2 202303367 A5 202203659 A1 202401132 A2 |
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE JAY
and
HER HONOUR JUDGE MORELAND
____________________
DANIEL CHRISTOPHER LEITCH |
First Appellant |
|
PB |
Applicant |
|
PAUL FLEET |
Third Appellant |
|
DS |
Fourth Appellant |
|
ANDREW ADAMS |
Fifth Appellant |
|
RENNY FLETCHER |
Sixth Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
REX |
Respondent |
____________________
Michael Green (instructed by WYS Solicitors) for the Applicant
Simon Mintz (instructed by Gamlins Law) for the Third Appellant
Ayesha Smart (instructed by DN Law Limited) for the Fourth Appellant
Chantel Gaber (instructed by Reeds Solicitors) for the Fifth Appellant
Stephen Fidler (instructed by Bark and Co) for the Sixth Appellant
Paul Jarvis (instructed by Criminal Appeals Unit) for the Respondent
Hearing date : 9 May 2024
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS :
This is the judgment of the court to which each of us has contributed.
Introduction
General principles
"Although the log records a verdict pursuant to section 17 the transcripts show that the judge did not pronounce such an order in open court. It appears that the judge intended to make such an order but the reference to dealing with that matter later does not, in our view, constitute a sufficient pronouncement. The record made by the clerk is not such an order and does not constitute a verdict under section 17 . Where the judge fails to pronounce an order in open court, the omission cannot be remedied by an officer of the court making an entry on a court record sheet ( R. v. Kent (1983) 77 Cr App R 120 at pp. 124–5; R. v. Watkins [2014] EWCA Crim 1677 at [6])."
Buttigieg was concerned with an order rather than a sentence. There is no valid distinction to be drawn between the two.
"Crown Courts have been making mistakes resulting in illegal sentences."
He gave a number of examples after which he said:
"There have been further difficulties arising in the following way. There have, on occasions, been, understandably, efforts made by court staff to prevent mistakes arising. This has resulted in discrepancies being observed between the sentence pronounced by the judge and that appearing on the record sheet. We wish to make….clear: first of all, the order of the court is that pronounced by the judge in open court. Secondly, the responsibility of the court staff is to make a record which accurately reflects that pronouncement."
"….we would like to emphasise that, if a judge is minded to vary a sentence he has passed or even to clarify a doubt or ambiguity as to the effect of it, he should do so in open court. He should not do it behind the scenes or by transmitting a message. Only if the matter is finally resolved in open court will all concerned and the public hear the final decision from the judge himself and in his own terms. Only thus will a shorthand note be recorded and available."
Daniel Leitch
The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person's lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with s3 of the Act.
Introduction
i) Count 2 – extended determinate sentence of 9 years 2 months comprising a custodial term of 7 years 2 months and an extended licence period of 2 years.
ii) Count 3 – 12 months' imprisonment.
iii) Count 5 – 1 month's imprisonment.
iv) Count 6 – 12 months' imprisonment.
v) Count 9 – 12 months' imprisonment.
The facts
The sentence
The appeal
Assessment
"I asked for some assistance from the court with regard to a concern that Mr Leitch had about having to be on the Sex Offenders Register should he plead to Count 3. The judge on that occasion (who I assumed would be the judge at sentence) indicated that the sentences imposed could be done in a way to reflect the fact that that offence was not sexually motivated but instead an act of pure aggressive degradation."
DS
Introduction
The Facts
The Sentence
The Appeal
Assessment
Paul Fleet
The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this case. Under those provisions, where an allegation has been made that a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person's lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with s.3 of the Act.
Introduction
i) Stalking involving serious harm or distress (two offences) – 4 years' imprisonment and 2 years' imprisonment;
ii) Attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child – 12 months' imprisonment;
iii) Harassment – 4 months' imprisonment.
iv) Possession of Class B drugs – no separate penalty.
All of those sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The total sentence was 4 years' imprisonment.
The facts
The sentence
The appeal
PB
Introduction
The Facts
The Sentence
The Appeal
Assessment
Andrew Adams
Introduction
The facts
The sentence
The appeal
Renny Fletcher
Introduction
For aggravated vehicle taking he received a sentence of 36 weeks' imprisonment. Initially he was disqualified from driving for 62 weeks. This was intended to represent a discretionary period of 12 months (the minimum mandatory period for the offence) and an extension period of 18 weeks to represent the period that the appellant would be in custody. The appellant's counsel told the judge that the appellant had been remanded in custody for a week. The judge then reduced the overall disqualification to 61 weeks to take account of the week spent in custody. He was required to take an extended retest. There were two errors with this part of the sentence. First, the judge's arithmetic was faulty. The overall period of disqualification should have been 70 weeks. Second, the judge reduced the extension period by 1 week to take account of time spent on remand. That was not within the terms of section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The extension period must be fixed by reference to the custodial sentence imposed. Where a defendant has spent a prolonged period on remand, any injustice that might result from the operation of section 35A will be met by an adjustment of the discretionary period of disqualification: Needham [2016] 1 WLR 4449 at [32] to [39]. Given the period of remand in this case, no such adjustment was necessary.
The facts
The chronology of the proceedings
The sentence
The appeal
The disqualification from driving