Harvey, R. v

Harvey, R. v

The phrase 'charged on the same occasion' in section 22A(4)(b) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 is to be interpreted as referring to the accused's appearance before the magistrates' court to answer charges, allowing aggregation of values for sentencing purposes. The sentence imposed for the low-value shoplifting offence was unlawful as it exceeded the magistrates' court powers, and the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. The appropriate total sentence after credit for guilty pleas is 30 months' imprisonment, with all sentences to run concurrently.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Daniel Harvey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Shoplifting, Fraud by False Representation, Driving Offences, Jurisdiction of Magistrates and Crown Court, Aggregation of Offences
Criminal Law Sentencing Shoplifting Fraud by False Representation Driving Offences Jurisdiction of Magistrates and Crown Court Aggregation of Offences

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Daniel Harvey

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the aggregation of values for low-value shoplifting offences should be determined by charges on the same occasion or appearance before the magistrates' court
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing powers of the crown court were lawfully exercised for summary only offences
  3. 3 Whether the total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'charged on the same occasion' in section 22A(4)(b) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 is to be interpreted as referring to the accused's appearance before the magistrates' court to answer charges, allowing aggregation of values for sentencing purposes. The sentence imposed for the low-value shoplifting offence was unlawful as it exceeded the magistrates' court powers, and the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. The appropriate total sentence after credit for guilty pleas is 30 months' imprisonment, with all sentences to run concurrently.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentence for H Samuel theft quashed and substituted with 30 months' imprisonment
  • Sentence for Aldi theft quashed and substituted with 4 months' imprisonment to run concurrently