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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT CAMBRIDGE (HHJ MATTHEW LOWE) [41B22222421] CASE NO 202503061/A5 NCN: [2025] EWCA Crim 1302 |
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before:
LORD JUSTICE SINGH
MR JUSTICE LAVENDER
MR JUSTICE PEPPERALL
REX
V
JOHN MAUGHAN
__________
Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_________
NON-COUNSEL APPLICATION
_________
APPOVED JUDGMENT
MR JUSTICE LAVENDER:
The Registrar has referred to the Full Court this application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant on 12 May 2025 in the Crown Court at Cambridge for one count of aggravated vehicle taking, contrary to section 12A(1) of the Theft Act 1968. We grant both the extension of time and leave to appeal.
It is agreed that the appellant spent 35 days on a qualifying curfew and that consequently he was entitled to 18 days’ credit.
The sole ground of appeal is that the judge did not direct, as he was required to do by section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, that the 18-day credit period was to count as time served as part of the sentence.
It appears that this matter was overlooked by all concerned. By the time the appellant's counsel realised this, it was too late for an application to be made to the judge under the slip rule. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, in that we direct that the 18-day credit period is to count as time served as part of the appellant's sentence.
Two other matters have been drawn to our attention by the Registrar. The first matter is that the appellant was 20 when he was sentenced, but sentence was wrongly pronounced as a sentence of "imprisonment" and was thus unlawful. We quash the sentence of imprisonment and substitute a sentence of 12 months' detention in a young offender institution. The second matter is to clarify the period of disqualification from driving. We confirm that the appellant was disqualified for 18 months, made up of a statutory minimum of 12 months plus an extension period of 6 months.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk