British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Tomkins, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 244 (05 February 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/244.html
Cite as: [2010] EWCA Crim 244
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE KENNETH PARKER
____________________
| R E G I N A | ||
| v | ||
| KEVIN TOMKINS |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- MR JUSTICE SILBER: On 14 April 2008, Kevin Tomkins appeared at the Crown Court in Birmingham for sentence. He had previously pleaded guilty before the Magistrates' Court to a Count of burglary of a dwelling, the attempted burglary of a dwelling, and theft. He also asked for 15 offences to be taken into account. He was then committed to the Crown Court for sentence.
- The sentence imposed upon him was 12 months' imprisonment, suspended for 18 months concurrent on each Count. In addition, he was required to complete 180 hours unpaid work on a Think First Scheme, and 24 hours of supervision. The matter had been referred by the registrar to this court, and we grant leave to appeal.
- There had in fact been applications for a breach on 16 September 2008. The judge on that occasion ordered the sentence to continue with an additional 7 hours unpaid work to be imposed to mark the breach. Therefore, the order became more onerous. Subsequently, the appellant again was charged with breaching the order. This time the matter came before HHJ Inman QC, and he helpfully drew attention to the fact that the supervision period was too long. In those circumstances, counsel for the appellant appealed for leave to appeal on the basis that the 24 month supervision period was longer than the 18 month operational period, and therefore it was not justified by law.
- It is correct that section 189(4) of the Criminal Justice act 2003 provides that:
- As the operational period was 18 months, the supervision period of 24 months is too long and therefore unlawful. We therefore allow this appeal, reducing the supervision period from 24 months to 18 months, with effect from the date on which the sentence was imposed, which is 14 April 2008.
- To that extent this appeal is allowed.
"The supervision period must not end later than the operational period".