R v Ashden Williams
[2024] EWCA Crim 1244
R v Janarthan Sothilingham
5 April 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 485
Court of Appeal
A man was given a prison sentence but argued he should get time off because he was on bail with an electronic tag – even though the tag never worked. The court agreed the system failed him, not the other way around, and reduced his sentence.
Key Facts
- •Janarthan Sothilingham convicted of offences resulting in violent public disorder, sentenced to 57 months' imprisonment.
- •Appeal concerns lack of credit for time spent on bail with a curfew and electronic monitoring condition, where the electronic monitor was never fitted.
- •Appellant argued he complied with curfew despite lack of tag, but judge didn't accept evidence and gave only a 3-month sentence reduction.
- •Appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence about his compliance with the curfew.
- •The electronic monitor was never fitted due to administrative error.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of "electronic monitoring condition" in section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and section 326(3).
Sentencing Act 2020, sections 325 and 326
Credit for time spent on bail under qualifying curfew and electronic monitoring conditions.
Sentencing Act 2020, section 325
The onus is not on the defendant to ensure the electronic tag is fitted and functional; it's the responsibility of the authorities.
R v Marshall [2015] EWCA Crim 1999
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The court interpreted the relevant sections to mean that the appellant was entitled to credit for the time he was subject to the conditions, regardless of the electronic monitor not being fitted. The failure to fit the tag was an administrative error, not a breach by the appellant. The court rejected the Crown's argument that the monitoring had to be effective for credit to be given.
Sentence quashed and substituted.
The original sentence of 57 months was quashed and replaced with a 5-year sentence, with 423 days credit for time spent on curfew.
Application for fresh evidence refused.
The court found that the fresh evidence did not meet the threshold for admission.