Costin, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 729 (21 May 2025)

Costin, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 729 (21 May 2025)

The sentencing judge was entitled to refuse to make any further allowance for the time the appellant spent in custody under the IPP sentence prior to sentencing for the current offences. The judge properly applied the totality principle, considered current sentencing guidelines, and made an appropriate allowance for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 729
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Appellant: Michael Costin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Sexual Offences, Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp), Totality Principle, Historic Sexual Offences
Criminal Law Sentencing Sexual Offences Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp) Totality Principle Historic Sexual Offences

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Michael Costin

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to give sufficient weight to the punitive impact of the appellant's ongoing IPP sentence when imposing further custodial sentences for historic sexual offences.
  2. 2 Whether any further allowance should have been made for time spent in custody under the IPP sentence prior to sentencing for the current offences.

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to refuse to make any further allowance for the time the appellant spent in custody under the IPP sentence prior to sentencing for the current offences. The judge properly applied the totality principle, considered current sentencing guidelines, and made an appropriate allowance for delay between trial and sentencing. The consequences for the appellant's parole prospects and custodial conditions were a direct result of his further offending and do not warrant further reduction in sentence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal on the ground argued is refused.
  • No adjustment to sentence for time spent in custody under IPP prior to new sentence.