Johnson (RT) v R

Johnson (RT) v R

Where the number of days spent on remand is misstated or omitted in sentencing, and the error is agreed by both parties, the Court of Appeal may correct the record to reflect the accurate period, even after the statutory period for correction has elapsed, to ensure proper credit is given under s.240 Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Parties
Appellant: Nnaji; Appellant: Johnson (RT); Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeals allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Remand Credit, Administrative Error Correction
Criminal Law Sentencing Remand Credit Administrative Error Correction

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nnaji

Appellant

Johnson (RT)

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the correct number of days spent on remand was credited towards the custodial sentence under s.240 Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Procedural mechanism for correcting errors in remand credit after sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

Where the number of days spent on remand is misstated or omitted in sentencing, and the error is agreed by both parties, the Court of Appeal may correct the record to reflect the accurate period, even after the statutory period for correction has elapsed, to ensure proper credit is given under s.240 Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Court Disposition

appeals allowed in part

Orders

  • In Nnaji's case, 106 days spent on remand to count towards sentence; sentence is 8 years less 106 days.
  • In Johnson's case, remand credit varied from 81 to 84 days; sentence is 4 years less 84 days.