Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames v Slater

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns an Order made by HHJ Lethem in the County Court at Central London on 9 April 2021, whereby the Defendant was committed to prison for 9 months. The Defendant had engaged in a course of conduct from 2017 onwards involving approaching over 16 individuals to perform repair or refurbishment works on their properties. In many cases, the Defendant took money in advance but either failed to complete the work or completed it to a poor standard, necessitating costly remedial work by the victims. Some victims received no work at all despite advance payments. The sums involved in the allegations amounted to just under £50,000.

The Defendant had previously received a 6-month prison sentence in 2015 for similar offences, which had little deterrent effect. Additionally, an interim enforcement order was made against the Defendant on 1 January 2019, requiring payment of specific sums to various individuals by 4 February 2019, which the Defendant failed to comply with. The Defendant was also found to have breached multiple consumer protection laws by failing to carry out building works with reasonable care and skill.

The Judge proceeded to sentence the Defendant in his absence due to the Defendant’s history of failing to attend court voluntarily and disengagement from the proceedings. The Judge considered whether to adjourn or proceed to sentence and decided to proceed, imposing an immediate custodial sentence of 9 months, with the Defendant expected to serve 4 months.

The Defendant appealed without needing permission, raising grounds concerning lack of awareness of the proceedings, issues with service of the order, and medical unfitness for custody.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court recognized that the Defendant's appeal was not a challenge to the conviction or the imposition of the sentence itself, but rather a request to defer, suspend, or vary the sentence on medical grounds. The Court noted the Defendant’s history of similar offending and failure to comply with prior court orders, justifying the custodial sentence imposed. The Court acknowledged the Defendant’s medical condition but held that the appropriate mechanism to address such concerns is an application to discharge or vary the committal order under CPR r 81.10. The Court emphasized that the sentencing Judge had already contemplated the possibility of such applications following arrest. The Court also admitted additional evidence related to service of the committal order and ongoing conduct of the Defendant, noting that such evidence may be relevant to any future application to discharge the order.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED THE APPEAL.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Defendant’s 9-month custodial sentence stands as imposed. The Court clarified that any request to defer, suspend, or vary the sentence on medical or other grounds must be made through an application to discharge the committal order before the original sentencing Judge. No new precedent was set by this decision. The Defendant remains entitled to seek legal aid for such applications, which should be supported by full and appropriate evidence regarding rehabilitation or medical placements.