Case No:
200905323 A8
Neutral Citation Number:
[2010] EWCA Crim 244
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Date:
Friday, 5 February 2010
B e f o r e
:
MR JUSTICE SILBER
MR JUSTICE KENNETH PARKER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R E G I N A
v
KEVIN TOMKINS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The
Appellant
and the
Crown
were unrepresented
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.
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.
2.
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.
3.
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.
4.
It is correct that
section 189(4) of the Criminal Justice act 2003
provides that:
"The supervision period must not end later than the operational period".
5.
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.
6.
To that extent this appeal is allowed.