Edwards, R (on the application of) v Governor of HMP Hatfield

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a renewed application for judicial review brought by the Plaintiff against the governor of Her Majesty's Prison Hatfield and the Secretary of State for Justice. The Plaintiff challenges the decision of the governor dated 24th April 2012, which calculated the Plaintiff's release date as 30th April 2013. The Plaintiff contends that the correct release date should have been 19th October 2012, and that he has consequently been detained beyond lawful authority since that date.

Chronologically, the Plaintiff was sentenced on 23rd February 2007 to a total of 12 years' imprisonment for offences including smuggling and money laundering. The 12-year sentence comprised 9 years for smuggling, 3 years concurrent for some money laundering offences, and 3 years consecutive for a further money laundering offence. The Plaintiff was credited with 190 days on remand.

Following the sentencing, confiscation proceedings concluded on 12th June 2008, resulting in an order to pay approximately £713,548.23, with a default term of 4 years' imprisonment fixed for non-payment. Subsequently, a committal order was made on 17th August 2011 by Leeds Magistrates' Court due to unpaid sums under the confiscation order. The committal order imposed a consecutive prison term of 1384 days (later reduced to 1245 days) to be served after the Plaintiff's sentence.

On 3rd April 2012, the Plaintiff's appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), reducing the total sentence from 12 years to 9 years by making the previously consecutive 3-year sentence concurrent. The Plaintiff argues that the committal order term should run consecutive to the revised 9-year sentence, not the original 12-year sentence, and that this affects the calculation of his release date.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the committal order imposing a consecutive sentence for non-payment of the confiscation order should be calculated as consecutive to the original 12-year sentence or to the reduced 9-year sentence following the Court of Appeal's decision.
2. Whether the committal order term can be backdated to commence immediately after the reduced sentence expiry, thereby affecting the Plaintiff's lawful release date.
3. Whether the Plaintiff has been unlawfully detained beyond his lawful release date due to the calculation of the committal order term.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The committal order was originally made consecutive to a 12-year sentence, but following the Court of Appeal's decision reducing the sentence to 9 years, the committal term should run consecutive to the revised sentence.
• The order itself is not backdated, but its effect must be brought back to a different point in time consistent with the reduced sentence length.
• The Plaintiff has been detained beyond the lawful release date since 19th October 2012.

Defendant's Arguments

• The committal order date (17th August 2011) cannot be consecutive to the 12-year sentence because that sentence has been reduced.
• The committal order term cannot be backdated and must run from the date of the committal order itself (17th August 2011 or adjusted date after payment).
• The Plaintiff's application is unarguable as it would effectively backdate the committal term contrary to legal principles.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the chronology and the effect of the Court of Appeal's decision on the Plaintiff's sentence. It acknowledged the Plaintiff's argument that the committal order term, originally ordered consecutive to a 12-year sentence, should now be treated as consecutive to the reduced 9-year sentence. The court noted the legal complexity of whether the committal term can be backdated or must run from the committal order date. Although the court did not resolve the substantive issue, it found the Plaintiff's argument to be sufficiently arguable to warrant further consideration. The court emphasized the importance of allowing the Plaintiff the opportunity to present the argument fully, given the potential for unlawful detention. The court also ordered expedition due to the Plaintiff's circumstances.

Holding and Implications

The court granted permission for the Plaintiff to proceed with the judicial review application, recognizing the arguability of the claim. The court did not make a final determination on the merits but allowed the matter to proceed to be heard on its substantive issues.

Permission to proceed with judicial review granted.

The direct implication is that the Plaintiff will have the opportunity to challenge the calculation of his release date and the consecutive nature of the committal order term. No new legal precedent was established by this decision, as it primarily addresses procedural permission to advance the claim.