Ashes v R. [2007] EWCA Crim 1848 (24 July 2007)

Ashes v R. [2007] EWCA Crim 1848 (24 July 2007)

The sentencing judge was entitled to impose a sentence of imprisonment for public protection given the appellant's previous convictions and the nature of the offence. The calculation of the minimum term should have taken into account only the period remaining to be served on the existing determinate sentence, and credit for time spent on remand should only be given for periods not covered by another sentence. The judge's error in calculation did not result in a manifestly excessive sentence, and the appeal must be dismissed as the court cannot increase the sentence.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Crim 1848
Parties
Appellant: Stephen Kenny Ashes; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Imprisonment for Public Protection, Sentencing, Minimum Term Calculation, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Remand Credit
Criminal Law Imprisonment for Public Protection Sentencing Minimum Term Calculation Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences Remand Credit

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Kenny Ashes

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should a minimum term be set for an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence when the offender is already serving a custodial term?
  2. 2 How should the court approach imposing an IPP sentence on someone already serving an IPP sentence?
  3. 3 How should time spent in custody be credited in these circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to impose a sentence of imprisonment for public protection given the appellant's previous convictions and the nature of the offence. The calculation of the minimum term should have taken into account only the period remaining to be served on the existing determinate sentence, and credit for time spent on remand should only be given for periods not covered by another sentence. The judge's error in calculation did not result in a manifestly excessive sentence, and the appeal must be dismissed as the court cannot increase the sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed