England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

Royal Courts of Justice

The Strand

London WC2

Tuesday 31st March 1998

B E F O R E :

LORD JUSTICE EVANS

MR JUSTICE CURTIS

and

MR JUSTICE FORBES

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

R E G I N A

- v -

TERRY ROBERTS

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

Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of

Smith Bernal Reporting Limited

180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD

Tel No: 0171 421 4040 Fax No: 0171 831 8838

(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

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

MR O GLASGOW appeared on behalf of the Appellant

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

JUDGMENT

( As Approved by the Court )

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

Crown Copyright

Tuesday 31st March 1998

LORD JUSTICE EVANS: Terry Roberts who is now aged 29 appeared before the Crown Court at Maidstone before His Honour Judge Rogers QC on 17th December 1997. He had been committed for sentence for various matters in respect of which he had appeared before the Magistrates' Court. There were four charges in all, taking a vehicle without consent, an aggravated offence, driving while disqualified and without insurance, and theft. For those matters he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Rogers to a total sentence of 18 months' imprisonment and he was disqualified from driving for 3 years and ordered to take an extended re-test. He does not appeal against those sentences.

On the same occasion, he pleaded guilty to a separate charge of escaping from lawful custody. In respect of that offence he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment consecutive to the 18 months' sentence in respect of the other offences. He now appeals against that consecutive 18 month sentence.

We have had the benefit of a moderate and able advice against sentence and oral submissions from Mr. Glasgow, his counsel, for which we are grateful.

The facts of the case as described by the prison custody officer were these. The officer is employed by Premier Prison Services Limited, and on 3rd September 1997, he took the appellant to the Tunbridge Wells Magistrates' Court in the course of his duties. They were sitting in the dock. He said this:

"I was sat there for three or four minutes when suddenly Roberts leapt up in one movement, jumped the dock off to the right side. There was no conversation between us and Roberts gave no indication of what he was about to do. I immediately jumped up and over the dock to give chase and was joined by another colleague, Prison Custody Officer Hook."

He described how they chased Roberts through the corridors of the court building and Roberts kept a distance of approximately 10 feet in front of him. He continued:

"As Roberts jumped the last few steps into the foyer he appeared to gather speed and ran out of the main door into the street. Roberts then ran straight into the road in the path of heavy traffic, causing cars to swerve to avoid him. The distance between me and Roberts and the danger of the traffic prevented me from continuing to chase him and I lost sight of it of him."

It is clear from the recital of the events that this was an entirely opportunistic escape from custody. Roberts in fact remained at large for some six weeks until mid- October.

Mr. Glasgow has referred us to the authorities, in particular R v. Sutcliffe (1992) 13 Cr.App.R.(S.) 538 and R v. Wilson (1992) 14 Cr.App.R.(S.) 314. He has rightly accepted that those and all the other authorities emphasise that this offence, escape from lawful custody, is always a serious offence and, quoting from the judgment of Brooke J. in Sutcliffe:

"It is quite essential for the courts to mark out the seriousness of escapes from custody of this kind, whether in the Magistrates' Courts or in the Crown Court, by immediate sentences of imprisonment. It is not only intended as a punishment but it is also intended to be a clear deterrent to others contemplating escapes from custody."

In those circumstances, there can be no doubt but that a sentence of immediate imprisonment consecutive to the 18 month sentence passed in respect of the other offences was the appropriate sentence in this case.

The authorities show that an important factor to consider is whether the escape was opportunistic, as it was in Sutcliffe and as it was here, as distinct from one which carefully planned, as was the case in Wilson. There, Hobhouse J. said that the inevitable interference was that there had been a contrived situation by the appellant, who had created an opportunity to escape and then taken advantage of it. That factor does not apply here.

On the other hand, in Sutcliffe there was evidence of some injury caused to one of the prison officers in restraining the escaping prisoner. His attempt was successful. In Sutcliffe's case the escape lasted only a few minutes. Here, it was successful and lasted for much longer.

Taking account of those authorities, and the nature of the offence, it seems to us that this case has to be regarded as rather more serious than Sutcliffe though less serious than Wilson. Mr. Glasgow has not sought to dissuade us from that view.

In our judgment, the appropriate sentence in this case was one of 9 months' imprisonment. The sentence of 18 months passed in respect of the offence of escape from lawful custody is therefore quashed, a sentence of 9 months' imprisonment is substituted. That sentence remains consecutive to the others that were passed, making a total sentence of 2 years and 3 months in place of the 3 years originally imposed.