R v Janarthan Sothilingham
The appellant was entitled to credit for half the days he was subject to qualifying curfew and electronic monitoring conditions, regardless of whether the electronic tag was fitted or operational, as the statute refers to the imposition of conditions, not their effectiveness.
- Parties
- Appellant: Janarthan Sothilingham; Respondent: Rex
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 05 April 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; sentence quashed and substituted
- Legal Topics
- Credit for Time on Bail, Electronic Monitoring, Curfew Conditions, Statutory Interpretation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Janarthan Sothilingham
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to credit for time spent on bail subject to a qualifying curfew and electronic monitoring condition when the electronic tag was never fitted
- 2 Proper interpretation of sections 325 and 326 of the Sentencing Act 2020
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant was entitled to credit for half the days he was subject to qualifying curfew and electronic monitoring conditions, regardless of whether the electronic tag was fitted or operational, as the statute refers to the imposition of conditions, not their effectiveness.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; sentence quashed and substituted
Orders
- Appellant given credit for 423 days on tagged curfew under section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020
- Sentence of 57 months' imprisonment quashed and substituted with five years' imprisonment, with 423 days to count towards sentence
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment