Phillips, R. v [2015] EWCA Crim 427 (13 February 2015)

Phillips, R. v [2015] EWCA Crim 427 (13 February 2015)

The sentencing court has only a residual discretion to reduce sentence for time spent on remand coinciding with recall, and only to correct injustice in cases of excessive delay. The statutory scheme under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is clear and cannot be circumvented by judicial discretion. In these cases, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Crim 427
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Nathan David Phillips; Appellant: Ronan John O'Brien; Appellant: Kavel Kalychurn
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Recall of Prisoners, Time Served Credit, Delay in Sentencing, Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences
Criminal Law Sentencing Recall of Prisoners Time Served Credit Delay in Sentencing Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Nathan David Phillips

Appellant

Ronan John O'Brien

Appellant

Kavel Kalychurn

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentencing courts have discretion to reduce sentences for recalled prisoners to account for time spent on remand that does not count as time served under section 240ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether delay in charging or sentencing justifies further reduction of sentence
  3. 3 Whether failure to reduce sentence in these circumstances renders the sentence wrong in principle or manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing court has only a residual discretion to reduce sentence for time spent on remand coinciding with recall, and only to correct injustice in cases of excessive delay. The statutory scheme under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is clear and cannot be circumvented by judicial discretion. In these cases, the delays were not excessive or unjust, and the sentences imposed were not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted in Phillips; appeal dismissed
  • Appeals of O'Brien and Kalychurn dismissed