England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

Royal Courts of Justice

The Strand

London WC2

Tuesday 28th January 1997

B E F O R E :

LORD JUSTICE ROCH

MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD

and

HIS HONOUR JUDGE RANT QC

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL

(Acting as a Judge of the CACD)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

R E G I N A

- v -

ANTHONY COUGHTREY

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of

Smith Bernal Reporting Limited

180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD

Tel No: 0171 831 3183 Fax No: 0171 831 8838

(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Non-counsel application

- - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT

( As approved by the Court )

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Crown Copyright

Tuesday 28th January 1997

MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD: On 25th March 1996, in the Crown Court at Knightsbridge, the applicant pleaded guilty to count 1, a charge of breaking prison. He pleaded not guilty to a related offence of false imprisonment and was acquitted after a trial of that allegation. On 28th March 1996 the applicant was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, to run concurrently with a sentence of life imprisonment.

A co-accused, Gary Johns, who was similarly charged on both counts, also pleaded guilty to count 1 and was acquitted on the charge of false imprisonment. He received an identical sentence.

The applicant now renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge.

The life sentence which the applicant was serving was imposed for an offence of murder by the Crown Court at Luton in May 1993. The applicant, consequent upon that sentence, was transferred to the lifer unit at E Wing at HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs and classified as category B. He was allocated to duties in the Works Department because he was not known to be a security risk.

During the afternoon of 30th July 1995 the applicant and his co-accused escaped from their work place in the prison. They burned through the perimeter fence using oxyacetylene equipment and then used a ladder to scale the outside wall, over which they made their escape. The applicant remained unlawfully at large for about one week until his arrest in Stevenage on 7th August.

The prosecution alleged that, immediately prior to that escape, the two men had overpowered their civilian supervisor, tying him up and threatening him. That allegation formed the basis of the count of false imprisonment. The applicant alleged that the supervisor was a corrupt employee who had helped to arrange the escape, an allegation which the jury, by their verdict of not guilty, were not apparently satisfied the Crown had disproved.

Breaking prison is a very serious offence, which in normal circumstances will result in a substantial consecutive prison sentence. Here the sentence imposed had to run concurrently with the life sentence. Nonetheless it seems to us that the court must impose a sentence which is of appropriate length and must not impose a sentence which, had the prisoner been serving a long determinate sentence, would be regarded as manifestly excessive.

There is little guidance on the appropriate length of sentence for such offence as this. Such guidance as there is suggests that it is at least arguable that a term of seven years for an escape not involving actual violence and which appears to have been achieved without outside assistance or very extensive planning was excessive in length. We accordingly grant the application for leave to appeal.

We further consider it would be helpful if the full Court hearing this appeal thought it appropriate, for the Court to offer guidance on the general approach to be taken by sentencers dealing with cases of escape from custody.

We propose, in those circumstances, to grant leave and to extend legal aid for counsel only to argue the appeal in due course.

The appellant must understand that we are by no means concluding that the sentence was necessarily excessive in length, only that it is arguably so.