Haddad, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from the Appellant's failure to surrender to bail at the appointed time for the start of a trial at Wood Green Crown Court on 23rd January 2023, concerning offences of assault. The Appellant was acquitted by the jury, but the trial judge found the Bail Act offence of failing to surrender proved and imposed a suspended sentence of 7 days' imprisonment, suspended for 6 months. The Appellant initially represented himself but later received legal representation. The appeal challenges both the conviction and the sentence.

The Appellant was charged with offences of assault arising from an incident in November 2021. After a delay due to court backlogs, the trial was placed on a "warned list" for a two-week period in January 2023, meaning it could be called on any day in that period. The Appellant was informed by his solicitors about the warned list but disputed the extent of his obligation to be available throughout the full two weeks. The Appellant took only one week off work and did not notify his employer of the hearing.

On the afternoon before the trial was set to start on 24th January, the solicitors learned the trial was listed for the following morning and attempted to notify the Appellant by phone, text, and email. The Appellant did not receive the messages in time due to work commitments and technical issues. He sent a text claiming his van had broken down, which he later admitted was inaccurate. The Appellant arrived late at court around 1:30 pm, after the trial had started. The judge addressed the Bail Act offence at the conclusion of the trial, found the Appellant guilty, and imposed the suspended sentence.

The Appellant raised grounds of appeal against conviction and sentence, arguing procedural unfairness and unlawfulness of the sentence. The appeal court heard oral and written submissions and reserved judgment on the sentence appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant's conviction for the Bail Act offence of failing to surrender was safe and procedurally fair, particularly regarding legal representation and opportunity to explain his absence.
2. Whether the suspended sentence of 7 days' imprisonment imposed for the Bail Act offence was lawful, given statutory minimum custodial terms for suspended sentences.
3. Whether the sentence imposed should be characterised as a sentence for contempt of court or as a sentence for the Bail Act offence, and the implications of that characterisation for sentencing powers and minimum terms.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant was not given the opportunity to apply for legal representation in the Bail Act proceedings and was effectively unrepresented.
• The procedure for inviting the Appellant to dispute the solicitor's version was unfair and limited his ability to explain his reasons for late attendance.
• Miscommunications and misunderstandings with the solicitor showed the Appellant had every intention to attend on time.
• The suspended sentence of 7 days was unlawful because the statutory minimum custodial term for suspension is 14 days.
• The judge did not and could not lawfully impose a committal order for contempt; the sentence was a standard suspended sentence for the Bail Act offence.
• The Bail Act offence is not a "kindred offence" to contempt of court for the purposes of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Appellant was not prejudiced by lack of legal representation and had the fullest opportunity to present his case.
• The Appellant's failure to attend was due to his own disregard for the court process and failure to inform his employer.
• The sentence was lawful because it was imposed "as if for" contempt of court, which is not subject to the 14-day minimum custodial term for suspended sentences under s.277(2) Sentencing Act 2020.
• Statutory provisions (s.6(5) Bail Act 1976, s.14 Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.45 Senior Courts Act 1981) and procedural rules support that the sentence was effectively a suspended committal for contempt.
• Alternatively, the Bail Act offence is a "kindred offence" to contempt, exempting it from the minimum custodial term restriction.
• The court should uphold the sentence but correct the record to reflect that it was a suspended committal rather than a suspended sentence order.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined whether the sentence imposed was lawful under the Sentencing Act 2020, which requires a minimum custodial term of 14 days for suspended sentences. Initially, it was accepted that the 7-day suspended sentence was unlawful. However, the Respondent argued the sentence was imposed "as if for" contempt, which is exempt from this minimum due to statutory definitions excluding committal for contempt from "sentence of imprisonment".

The court analyzed the statutory framework, including s.6(5) and s.6(7) Bail Act 1976, which allow the offence to be punished "as if it were a criminal contempt" but do not convert the offence itself into contempt. The court reviewed case law establishing that the Bail Act offence is a distinct criminal offence, not a contempt of court. The phrase "as if" indicates a procedural alternative rather than a substantive reclassification.

The court found that the judge intended to impose a standard suspended sentence for the Bail Act offence, referencing relevant sentencing guidelines, rather than a committal for contempt. The court rejected the Respondent's argument that the sentence was a suspended committal order, noting the limited sentencing options for contempt and the inconsistency with sentencing guidelines allowing community orders for the Bail Act offence.

The court further reasoned that accepting the Respondent's position would create anomalies, such as differing sentencing powers between magistrates' courts and Crown Courts for the same offence and the inability to impose community orders in Crown Court sentencing if treated as contempt.

Regarding the conviction, the court concluded that the procedure was fair, the Appellant was given the fullest opportunity to explain, and the conviction was safe. The lack of separate legal representation did not render the conviction unsafe.

On disposal, the court considered the time served by the Appellant during the trial and the elapsed suspension period. It concluded that substituting a lawful suspended sentence would be unjust and instead imposed an absolute discharge.

Holding and Implications

Conviction Appeal: The appeal against conviction is DISMISSED. The conviction for the Bail Act offence is safe and procedurally fair.

Sentence Appeal: The appeal against sentence is ALLOWED. The suspended sentence of 7 days' imprisonment was unlawful due to statutory minimum term requirements and is quashed. An absolute discharge is substituted.

The victim surcharge order, which was not pronounced at sentencing and cannot stand, is also quashed. No new legal precedent is established beyond the application of existing authorities affirming that the Bail Act offence is not contempt and that minimum custodial terms for suspended sentences apply.