Fewery, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant faced a 10-count indictment relating to offences occurring between 1 May 2023 and 22 September 2023. Initially pleading not guilty to all counts on 13 November 2023 in the Crown Court at The City, the Appellant later pleaded guilty to six summary-only offences under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and a section 51 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 matter on 29 January 2024. The offences mainly involved assaults on the victim, who was in a relationship with the Appellant at the time, and included a breach of a restraining order imposed forbidding contact with the victim.

The Appellant was sentenced on 11 March 2024 to a suspended sentence totaling 15 months' imprisonment with various requirements, including alcohol abstinence and rehabilitation programs. A restraining order was imposed for five years. Subsequently, the Appellant pleaded guilty to breaching this restraining order on 30 March 2024 and was sentenced to one month imprisonment on 24 May 2024, consecutively activating the suspended sentence.

Further breaches and new offences led to additional court proceedings, including a trial listing for an assault occasioning actual bodily harm allegation. Concerns were raised regarding the lawfulness of the original 15-month suspended sentence, as it exceeded the statutory maximum for summary offences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the original sentence imposed on 11 March 2024 was lawful, given statutory limits on aggregate sentencing for summary offences.
2. Whether the activation of the suspended sentence on 24 May 2024 was lawful in light of the original sentence's validity.
3. The appropriate resentencing of the Appellant following the quashing of the original sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence imposed on 11 March 2024 was unlawful as it exceeded the statutory maximum of six months' imprisonment for summary offences.
• The suspended sentence order should be quashed and the Appellant resentenced accordingly.
• The activation of the suspended sentence on 24 May 2024 was unlawful and should also be quashed.

Respondent's Arguments

• Conceded that the 11 March 2024 sentence was unlawful for exceeding the statutory maximum aggregate sentence for summary offences.
• Agreed that the activation of the suspended sentence on 24 May 2024 was unlawful due to the invalid original sentence.
• Apologized for the failure to point out the statutory limit at earlier hearings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed section 133(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1990, which limits the aggregate custodial sentence for two or more summary offences to six months. The Court noted an exception for either-way offences tried summarily, which was not applicable here as all offences were summary-only. The Court referenced authoritative case law confirming this statutory limit.

Finding that the Recorder had imposed a 15-month suspended sentence exceeding the statutory maximum, the Court concluded that the sentence was unlawful. The Court exercised its powers under section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to quash the unlawful sentence and to impose a lawful sentence, ensuring the Appellant would not be more severely dealt with than originally.

In resentencing, the Court assessed the culpability and harm levels consistent with the original findings, applying appropriate reductions for the late guilty pleas. The Court imposed concurrent sentences reflecting the overall criminality, resulting in a 21-week custodial sentence suspended for 18 months without additional requirements due to the activation timing.

The Court also quashed the surcharge imposed and adjusted it to reflect the reduced sentence length. Regarding the breach of the restraining order, the Court agreed with the original categorization and aggravating factors and imposed a consecutive 10-week custodial sentence.

The Court emphasized that the restraining order remains in force until March 2029, warning the Appellant of the serious consequences of non-compliance.

Holding and Implications

The Court GRANTED the applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal.

The Court QUASHED the original 15-month suspended sentence imposed on 11 March 2024 as unlawful for exceeding the statutory maximum aggregate sentence for summary offences.

The Court RESENTENCED the Appellant to a total of 21 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 18 months, with no additional requirements attached due to the timing of activation.

The Court QUASHED the activation of the suspended sentence on 24 May 2024 and replaced it with activation of the lawful 21-week sentence, which the Appellant has effectively served due to time on remand.

The Court imposed a consecutive 10-week custodial sentence for the breach of the restraining order.

The restraining order remains in place until 10 March 2029, with a clear warning that non-compliance may result in imprisonment for up to five years.

No new legal precedent was established; the decision primarily corrected an unlawful sentence and clarified the application of existing statutory limits to the facts of this case.