- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Conway, Re Application for Judicial Review
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from a decision of a High Court Judge dismissing the Appellant's application for judicial review concerning the calculation of the Appellant's custody expiry date ("CED") by the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Respondent. The Appellant received four separate concurrent sentences between 5 November 2020 and 19 March 2021, with the Respondent calculating a CED for each. The Appellant challenged the calculation of the CED for the fourth sentence, contending that time spent in custody between 5 November 2020 and 19 March 2021 should be credited against that sentence due to concurrency. The Appellant was released on interim relief pending the judicial review outcome, which was dismissed, but the requirement to serve the remainder of the sentence was stayed pending this appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Respondent erred in law by failing to treat concurrent sentences as a single sentence for the purpose of calculating the custody expiry date.
- Whether time spent in custody as a sentenced prisoner should be taken into account in calculating the custody expiry date for concurrent sentences, as opposed to only time spent on remand.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Appellant argued that under section 33(2) of the Treatment of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, concurrent sentences imposed on different occasions without release in between should be treated as a single term.
- Consequently, time spent in custody under an earlier concurrent sentence should be credited against the later sentence's custody expiry date.
- The Appellant contended that the Respondent's failure to include time spent in custody between 5 November 2020 and 19 March 2021 in the calculation of the CED for the fourth sentence was an error of law.
Respondent's Arguments
- This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Governor of Brockhill Prison ex p. Evans [1997] QB 443 | Concurrent sentences imposed on the same or different occasions must be treated as a single term; terminal date is that of the last sentence to expire. | The court applied Lord Bingham LCJ's interpretation to reject the Appellant’s argument that the terminal date should always be the longest sentence's expiry date. |
| R v Secretary of State ex p. Naughton [1997] 1 WLR 118 | Differentiation between "sentence of imprisonment" and "term of imprisonment"; exclusion of time spent in custody serving another sentence. | The court relied on Simon Brown LJ’s interpretation to emphasize that "only" excludes time spent as a sentenced prisoner from relevant custody periods. |
| Re McConville [2018] NIQB 98 | Concurrent sentences passed on different occasions without release are treated as a single term for remand time crediting. | The court noted that the 1968 Act contemplates concurrent sentences on different occasions treated as single terms if no release intervenes. |
| Re Allen [2020] NICA 40 | Courts must strictly adhere to statutory wording in sentence calculation cases. | The court applied McCloskey LJ’s admonition to adhere scrupulously to section 26 provisions, rejecting broader interpretations. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the statutory provisions of the Treatment of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, particularly sections 26(2), 26(2A), and 33(2). The central question was whether time spent in custody as a sentenced prisoner should reduce concurrent sentences imposed on different occasions. The court emphasised that section 26(2A)(b)(i) limits relevant custody periods to those where custody is solely due to a court committal order related to the offence or proceedings giving rise to the sentence, excluding custody as a sentenced prisoner. The word "only" in the statute was interpreted, following precedent, as excluding time served under another sentence.
Section 33(2) provides for treating concurrent sentences as a single term but does not extend to reducing sentences by time served as a sentenced prisoner on another concurrent sentence. The court found that the Appellant’s argument conflated the treatment of concurrent sentences as a single term with the statutory definition of relevant custody periods for sentence reduction. Hypothetical concerns about absurd results were acknowledged but did not justify departing from the clear statutory language.
The court adhered to established judicial interpretation and statutory construction principles, concluding that only time spent in custody on remand is relevant for reducing sentences, not time served under concurrent sentences.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED the appeal and affirmed the order of the High Court Judge. The Appellant was ordered to present himself to serve the remainder of his sentence. The Appellant was also ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal, with enforcement stayed pending further order.
The direct effect is that the Respondent's calculation of custody expiry dates excluding time served as a sentenced prisoner on concurrent sentences stands. No new precedent was set beyond reaffirming the strict statutory interpretation of sentence calculation provisions.
Alert