Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
- MRS JUSTICE SWIFT DBE
- LORD JUSTICE DYSON
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
REGINA v. Pilkington
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
On 4th June 2009 at Manchester Crown Court, the Appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter. On 17th July, the Appellant was sentenced to five years and four months' imprisonment. The sentencing judge indicated that this sentence should run consecutively to an existing sentence the Appellant was serving for burglary, a sentence that arose after the Appellant was recalled to prison while on licence. The existing sentence was due to expire on 20th October 2009. The Registrar referred an application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against the sentence to the full court, which was considered on the papers only.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence for manslaughter should run concurrently or consecutively with the sentence the Appellant was already serving following recall on licence.
- Whether the sentencing judge’s order for consecutive sentences was lawful under section 265 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Smith [2009] EWCA Crim. 1779 |
Interpretation of section 265 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 regarding consecutive sentencing. |
Confirmed that the sentencing judge could not lawfully order the manslaughter sentence to run consecutively to the sentence already being served. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered section 265 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which governs the imposition of consecutive sentences. It determined that the sentencing judge erred in ordering the manslaughter sentence to run consecutively to the sentence already being served by the Appellant following recall on licence. The court relied on the precedent set in R v Smith to clarify the legal position that consecutive sentences could not be imposed in this context. Consequently, the court varied the original sentence so that the manslaughter sentence runs concurrently with the existing sentence.
Holding and Implications
The court allowed the appeal to the extent that the sentence for manslaughter was varied to run concurrently with the sentence the Appellant was already serving. This decision directly affects the duration of imprisonment the Appellant will serve but does not establish any new legal precedent beyond applying existing statutory interpretation and case law.
Click here to read the full judgment