R v Jason Grainger
[2023] EWCA Crim 1434
Yousif Sesay & Ors v R
10 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 483
Court of Appeal
This case is about how judges should calculate time spent in jail before trial when someone gets a life sentence. The judges must say exactly how much time they're taking off the sentence, and if they don't, the court can fix it later. It's important to be exact because the life sentence is the final decision.
Key Facts
- •Four appeals concerning the calculation of remand periods in life sentences.
- •Cases involved murder and wounding with intent.
- •Appeals raised issues of sentencing disparity, justification of life sentences, and proper calculation/announcement of remand credit.
- •Judges' methods of calculating and announcing minimum terms were inconsistent with legal requirements.
Legal Principles
Crediting periods of remand in custody when imposing a life sentence requires consideration of sections 240 ZA and 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and sections 325 and 327 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
Sentencing Code section 322(2)
The minimum term in a life sentence is part of the sentence and not amenable to administrative review. Corrections must be done via section 385 of the Sentencing Code (within 56 days) or appeal to the Court of Appeal.
R v Cookson [2023] 2 Cr App R (S) 12
When imposing a determinate sentence, remand days and curfew periods are calculated automatically by HMPPS, while the judge must announce any curfew or extradition remand credits.
Hoggard [2014] 1 Cr App R (S) 41 and Gordon [2007] EWCA Crim 165
The sentencing judge must announce the minimum term for a life sentence after calculating it and clearly state the remand days credited.
This judgment
It is the duty of both defense and prosecution to provide accurate remand information to the court.
AA [2014] EWCA Crim 2483
The test for sentencing disparity is whether right-thinking members of the public would consider that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice.
This judgment
In considering whether a life sentence is justified for wounding with intent, the court considers the risk of serious harm from further offences and whether a life sentence is necessary to protect the public.
This judgment
Murders involving sexual conduct are particularly serious because of the sexual element, not necessarily the brutality.
This judgment, McSweeney [2024] EWCA Crim 1250
Outcomes
Sesay's appeal partially allowed; minimum term reduced to reflect remand days.
The judge failed to specify remand days; the court corrected the minimum term.
Griffiths' appeal partially allowed; minimum term corrected to accurately reflect remand credit.
The judge's expression of remand credit was imprecise; the court substituted a precise minimum term.
Richards' appeal partially allowed; minimum term adjusted to account for remand time.
The judge's oral pronouncement did not specify remand days; the court corrected the minimum term based on court records.
Silcox's appeal partially allowed; minimum term corrected to reflect the correct remand days.
The unlawful administrative amendment of the remand days was disregarded; the court corrected the minimum term based on the original announcement.