Metcalfe, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 374 (18 February 2009)
Where the Probation Service has decided not to recall a defendant to prison for breach of licence, it is not just in all the circumstances to refuse to credit time spent on remand towards sentence under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The sentencing judge should have made a direction that the 88 days on remand count towards the sentence.
- Citation
- [2009] EWCA Crim 374
- Parties
- Respondent: Regina; Applicant/appellant: Billy Metcalfe
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 18 February 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Credit for Time Served, Remand Custody, Licence Recall
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Respondent
Billy Metcalfe
Applicant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in refusing to direct that 88 days spent on remand should count towards sentence under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
- 2 Whether the appellant was denied an opportunity to address the court on the issue of credit for remand time
Ratio Decidendi
Where the Probation Service has decided not to recall a defendant to prison for breach of licence, it is not just in all the circumstances to refuse to credit time spent on remand towards sentence under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The sentencing judge should have made a direction that the 88 days on remand count towards the sentence.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- The 88 days spent in custody on remand shall count towards the appellant's sentence pursuant to section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
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