R v Stephen John Butterworth

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:

LADY JUSTICE ANDREWS

MRS JUSTICE McGOWAN

MR JUSTICE SOOLE

Application to reopen the case

REX

v

STEPHEN JOHN BUTTERWORTH

__________

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)

_________

ADDENDUM TO JUDGMENT

LADY JUSTICE ANDREWS:

1. On 2 May 2025 this court (comprising myself, McGowan and Soole JJ) heard an appeal by this appellant against a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years on terms including an electronically monitored curfew, which was imposed upon him for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to which he pleaded guilty at the plea and trial preparation hearing. He received a concurrent sentence for an offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act of 2 months' imprisonment suspended for the same period and in the same terms.

2. The court allowed the appeal. It determined that the judge's notional sentence after trial for the assault offence (16 months, before giving 25% credit for the appellant's plea of guilty) was too long, resulting in a sentence that was manifestly excessive, and that the notional sentence after trial should have been one of 10 months.

3. Unfortunately, when calculating the final adjusted sentence, there was a miscalculation of the 25% credit for plea, which resulted in the court pronouncing that the sentence would now be one of 8 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years on the same terms as before. On the proper mathematical calculation, the correct sentence should have been one of 30 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 2 years to run concurrently with the sentence imposed for the public order offence.

4. The Registrar has referred to the court an application under Crim PR r.36.15 to reopen the determination in order to correct the mathematical error in the calculation of the sentence. The parties were given the opportunity to make representations, and they have no objection to the proceedings being reopened. In accordance with the decision in R v Cunningham; R v Di Stefano [2019] EWCA Crim 2010, (2020) 1 Cr App R 15, the same constitution of this court has determined the application on the papers.

5. Although the error only made a difference of two weeks, it resulted in the appellant receiving a longer sentence than the court intended. In our judgment it is necessary to accede to this application in the interests of justice. The court therefore reopens its determination. We set aside the sentence previously pronounced and substitute for it a sentence of 30 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 2 years. For the avoidance of doubt, the terms on which the sentence was suspended remain the same as before and this sentence will run concurrently with the sentence imposed for the public order offence.

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