Calver-Smith, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against sentence challenging the Crown Court's power under Paragraph 25 of Part 5 of Schedule 10 to the Sentencing Act 2020 to revoke a magistrates' court community order when activating a suspended sentence. The Appellant admitted breaches of a suspended sentence order at the Crown Court. On 19 September 2025 Judge Edmunds activated part of the suspended sentence and revoked a 12‑month community order (originally imposed on 18 August 2023 by the Magistrates' Court) and re-sentenced the Appellant to four weeks' imprisonment consecutive to the activated term. Leave to appeal was granted by a single judge on a narrow ground that the Crown Court arguably lacked power to revoke the Community Order and re-sentence. The chronology in the opinion includes imposition of the Community Order (18 August 2023), commission of subsequent offences and committal (27 July 2024), imposition of a 42‑week suspended sentence (13 September 2024), extension of the unpaid work completion period to 22 July 2026 (23 July 2025), related magistrates' court breach proceedings, and the Crown Court proceedings of 16–19 September 2025 culminating in activation and revocation. Breach proceedings in the magistrates' court later proceeded on 5 February 2026 without apparent awareness of the Crown Court revocation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Crown Court had power under Paragraph 25 of Part 5 of Schedule 10 to the Sentencing Act 2020 to revoke a community order made by the magistrates' court and re-sentence when activating a suspended sentence.
2. Whether paragraph 25(1)(b)(ii) requires an immediate causal link between committal for sentence by a magistrates' court and the offender's appearance before the Crown Court for the Crown Court to have power to revoke and re-sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Crown Court did not have power to revoke the Community Order and re-sentence for the underlying offences; the Recorder lacked statutory authority.
• Initially argued the Community Order had expired, but it was later accepted that the order remained in force; the substantive contention became that the Crown Court's appearance related to activation of a suspended sentence and not a committal for sentence, so paragraph 25(1)(b)(ii) did not apply.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Recorder had power under paragraph 25(1)(b)(ii) to revoke and re-sentence; the gateway was engaged notwithstanding the appellant's appearance being for activation of a suspended sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory scheme in the Sentencing Act 2020, particularly section 218 and Schedule 10. It observed the statutory definitions distinguishing a "Crown Court community order" from a "community order subject to magistrates' court supervision" and treated the Community Order as the latter.

Part 2 (breach procedure) requires magistrates' court process for orders subject to magistrates' court supervision, so the Crown Court could not lawfully revoke under Part 2; the Recorder did not purport to do so. Part 3 permits applications for revocation to the Crown Court only in relation to Crown Court community orders and permits applications to magistrates' courts for orders subject to magistrates' court supervision, so Part 3 did not authorise the Crown Court's revocation.

The court focused on Part 5, paragraph 25, which permits the Crown Court to revoke and (if in the interests of justice) re-sentence where certain "gateways" exist. The opinion identified three gateways and held the first two were inapplicable. The critical issue was the third gateway in paragraph 25(1)(b)(ii): whether the offender "appears before the Crown Court ... having been committed by a magistrates' court to the Crown Court for sentence."

The court considered whether paragraph 25(1)(b)(ii) requires an immediate causal link between committal for sentence and the particular Crown Court hearing. It concluded no such immediate temporal causal link is required. Paragraph 25(1)(b)(ii) applies so long as the offender has been committed for sentence following conviction in the magistrates' court and the sentencing process remains incomplete; the gateway therefore remains open at a later sentencing‑related hearing, including a hearing to activate a suspended sentence imposed after committal. The court noted this interpretation aligns with the statutory purpose (so the Crown Court can deal with extant community orders when imposing immediate custody) and with practical sentencing realities.

Applying that interpretation, the court found that on 19 September 2025 the Appellant appeared before the Crown Court having been committed for sentence and that paragraph 25(1)(b)(ii) therefore applied, providing the Recorder with power to revoke the Community Order and re-sentence.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The Court held that paragraph 25(1)(b)(ii) of Part 5 of Schedule 10 to the Sentencing Act 2020 can apply at a hearing when a suspended sentence (imposed following committal for sentence) is activated; the Crown Court therefore had lawful power to revoke the Community Order and re-sentence as the Recorder did.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the Recorder's revocation of the Community Order and the four‑week consecutive sentence were lawful and the Appellant's appeal against that sentence was dismissed. The court declined to delineate exhaustive boundaries of the power beyond the statutory limits identified.