Phillips, R. v

Phillips, R. v

The sentencing court retains a residual discretion to reduce sentences in cases of excessive delay, but is not obliged to do so; statutory provisions governing remand credit and recall are clear and must be applied; no injustice or breach of Article 6 ECHR occurred in these cases; disparity between co-accused is justified by differing recall status.

Parties
Appellant: Nathan David Phillips; Appellant: Ronan John O'Brien; Appellant: Kavel Kalychurn; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences, Remand Credit, Delay in Sentencing, Recall on Licence, Article 6 ECHR

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nathan David Phillips

Appellant

Ronan John O'Brien

Appellant

Kavel Kalychurn

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether sentencing courts have discretion to reduce sentences for recalled prisoners due to delay and loss of remand credit
  2. 2 Whether delay in sentencing constitutes a breach of Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether disparity in actual time served between co-accused amounts to injustice

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing court retains a residual discretion to reduce sentences in cases of excessive delay, but is not obliged to do so; statutory provisions governing remand credit and recall are clear and must be applied; no injustice or breach of Article 6 ECHR occurred in these cases; disparity between co-accused is justified by differing recall status.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed