No: 2019 03780 A1
[2020] EWCA CRIM 128
Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondon, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
LADY JUSTICE SIMLER DBE
MR JUSTICE LAVENDER
SIR PETER OPENSHAW
R E G I N A
v
TYSON BUTLER
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Epiq Europe Ltd Lower Ground, 18-22
Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
This transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
WARNING: Reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
Non-counsel application
J U D G M E N T
(Draft for approval)
LADY JUSTICE SIMLER: This is an application to which the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply so that no matter may be published in any form relating to a person against whom a sexual offence has been committed if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of the offence. That
prohibition continues unless waived or lifted.
On 22nd December 2015 in the Crown Court at Bristol the applicant was convicted of three offences of rape, contrary to section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and sentenced to concurrent terms of 11 years' imprisonment in relation to each of those offences. He was also convicted of sexual assault, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and a term of 2 years' imprisonment concurrent was imposed in that regard. His application for a lengthy extension of time (namely 1,365 days) and for leave to appeal against sentence has been referred directly to the full court by the Registrar. The only issue raised by the application concerns the pronouncement made in relation to credit for time served under section 240A Criminal Justice Act 2003, or rather the lack of any such
pronouncement.
There is now no dispute that the number of days spent by the applicant on qualifying curfew was 489, which, when halved, gives a credit period of 245 days which ought to have been
credited but was not.
In R v Thorsby and others [2015] EWCA Crim 1 this court dealt with the question of when it is appropriate to grant significant extensions of time in circumstances where the sentencing court failed to give appropriate credit under the Act for one-half of the time spent by
an offender on qualifying curfew before sentence.
In this case it appears clear that the question of credit was not raised at the sentencing hearing on the applicant's behalf so that the judge made no appropriate order. There is no suggestion that the applicant bears any responsibility for that failure. Further, it appears that he acted promptly in drawing it to the attention of his solicitors as soon as he discovered the problem. In these circumstances it appears to us to be in the interests of justice to extend time, and we do so. We will give leave to appeal. The appeal will be allowed, and we order that 245 days will count towards the appellant's sentence under section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS
Tel No: 020 7404 1400
Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk