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. |
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. |
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before:
LORD JUSTICE SINGH
MRS JUSTICE WHIPPLE DBE
MRS JUSTICE MOULDER DBE
REGINA
V
SAM BATH
__________
Computer Aided Transcript 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) _________
NON-COUNSEL APPLICATION
_________
J U D G M E N T
MRS JUSTICE WHIPPLE: This appeal comes before us with leave of the single judge to correct a technical defect on sentence, pursuant to the process described in R v Hyde [2016] EWCA Crim 1031 [32].
It is not necessary to go into the background facts. It is necessary only to record that on 12 September 2016 the appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful wounding, under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (counts 3 and 5 on the indictment) as lesser alternatives to counts 2 and 4 on the indictment which were counts of
wounding with intent under section 18 of the same Act.
The plea was not acceptable to the Crown and the matter proceeded to trial. On 19 September 2016 the appellant was convicted of counts 2 and 4. On 23 December 2016 the appellant was sentenced on counts 2 and 4 to an extended sentence, under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, of 14 years' imprisonment, comprising a custodial term of 10 years and an extension period of 4 years. On counts 3 and 5 "no separate penalty" was
imposed and so recorded in the court record.
The appellant sought to appeal against sentence on two grounds. The second ground addressed the finding of dangerousness which gave rise to the extended sentence on counts 2 and 4. Permission to appeal on that ground was refused by the single judge and has not been
renewed before us.
The first ground was that the sentencing judge had been wrong to impose a sentence of "no separate penalty" on counts 3 and 5 as both were lesser alternatives to counts 2 and 4.
The correct position was that no sentence at all should have been imposed on counts 3 and 5. The appellant's guilty plea to those counts should simply have been left to lie on the court file. On that ground of appeal the single judge granted leave to appeal and extended
time, directing that there should be no representation of the appeal hearing and the appeal
should be on the papers only.
In the circumstances we allow the appeal on ground 1 but limit it to that ground. We direct that the court record be amended so that the sentence of "no separate penalty" is removed in relation to counts 3 and 5 and the appellant's guilty plea on those counts is simply left to lie
on the court file. In all other respects the sentence remains undisturbed.
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