R v Janarthan Sothilingham
[2023] EWCA Crim 485
R v Ashden Williams
3 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1244
Court of Appeal
Ashden Williams was given a prison sentence. He argued that some time he spent under house arrest should count toward his sentence. Even though he broke the rules of house arrest, the court decided it wasn't worth the time and effort to argue about the small difference. Therefore, they reduced his sentence.
Key Facts
- •Ashden Williams convicted of supplying Class A drugs and failing to surrender to custody.
- •Sentenced to 50 months and four weeks' imprisonment (less 118 days spent on remand).
- •Offences committed during the operational period of two suspended sentences.
- •Subject to an electronically monitored curfew which was never installed due to administrative errors and breaches by the defendant.
- •The applicant spent 285 days on a curfew.
- •The Crown initially argued that no curfew days should be deducted because of the device not being installed and breaches.
- •The applicant argued for a deduction of 143 days based on R v Sothilingham [2023] EWCA Crim 485.
- •New evidence revealed breaches of curfew conditions by the applicant.
Legal Principles
Deduction of days spent on qualifying curfew from sentence.
Section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020
If there is a failure to put in place a robust process for deploying electronic monitoring equipment, the loss should not lie with the defendant.
R v Sothilingham [2023] EWCA Crim 485
If there is a dispute about the number of days to be deducted, the prosecution must prove its case to the criminal standard. If resolving the dispute would be disproportionate in terms of time and expense, it should be resolved in the defendant's favour.
R v Barrie Hoggard [2013] EWCA Crim 1024
Credit for time spent on qualifying curfew under section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
R v Thorsby and Others [2015] EWCA Crim 1
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; 143 days deducted from sentence.
While the applicant breached his curfew conditions, resolving the minor discrepancy (resulting in a deduction of only 2 days) would be a disproportionate use of time and expense, following the principle in R v Hoggard.
Time extended to apply for leave to appeal.
The court accepted the explanation for the delay offered by the applicant's solicitors.
Leave to appeal granted.
Based on the application of R v Sothilingham and the disproportionate use of time and resources to resolve the minor discrepancy in curfew days.