Thompson v R

Thompson v R

The Court of Appeal may restructure sentences to comply with statutory requirements, but must ensure that, taking the case as a whole, the appellant is not more severely dealt with on appeal than in the Crown Court. Unlawful sentences under s. 236A must be quashed and replaced with lawful extended sentences, provided the substituted sentence does not breach s. 11(3). Consecutive extended sentences may be imposed in exceptional cases, allowing aggregate extension periods beyond the statutory maximum for a single offence. Slip rule variations outside statutory time limits are invalid.

Parties
Appellant: Christopher John Thompson; Respondent: The Queen; Appellant: Tajsham Cummings; Appellant: Oscar Fitzgerald; Appellant: Richard Ford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; sentences quashed and substituted where unlawful; appeals dismissed where sentences were not manifestly excessive or could not be lawfully increased.
Legal Topics
Extended Sentences, Special Custodial Sentences, Section 11(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1968, Section 236 a Criminal Justice Act 2003, Section 226 a Criminal Justice Act 2003, Mental Health Act 1983, Consecutive Sentences, Slip Rule, Totality Principle
Criminal Law Sentencing Extended Sentences Special Custodial Sentences Section 11(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1968 Section 236 a Criminal Justice Act 2003 Section 226 a Criminal Justice Act 2003 Mental Health Act 1983 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher John Thompson

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Tajsham Cummings

Appellant

Oscar Fitzgerald

Appellant

Richard Ford

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal can substitute determinate sentences with special custodial or extended sentences without breaching s. 11(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1968
  2. 2 Interpretation of s. 226A(8) Criminal Justice Act 2003 regarding maximum extension periods for consecutive sentences
  3. 3 Lawfulness of sentences imposed under s. 236A Criminal Justice Act 2003 for offences not listed in Schedule 18A

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal may restructure sentences to comply with statutory requirements, but must ensure that, taking the case as a whole, the appellant is not more severely dealt with on appeal than in the Crown Court. Unlawful sentences under s. 236A must be quashed and replaced with lawful extended sentences, provided the substituted sentence does not breach s. 11(3). Consecutive extended sentences may be imposed in exceptional cases, allowing aggregate extension periods beyond the statutory maximum for a single offence. Slip rule variations outside statutory time limits are invalid.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; sentences quashed and substituted where unlawful; appeals dismissed where sentences were not manifestly excessive or could not be lawfully increased.

Orders

  • Christopher John Thompson: original sentences under s. 236A quashed; substituted extended sentence of 21½ years (17 years custodial, 4½ years extension) consecutive to 2 years imprisonment.
  • Tajsham Cummings: appeal dismissed; original sentence of 12 years detention under s. 91 Powers of Criminal Courts Act 2000 upheld.