News

Matthew Humphreys, a solicitor from Duncan Lewis’ City of London and Harrow Crime department, recently secured a significant win at the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD), highlighting the importance of proper judicial process in sentencing.

The client, 19 years old at the time of his offending, fell to be sentenced for two sets of matters, both concerning offences of Possession with intent to supply Class A drugs, the first set occurring in December 2023, and the second in May 2024, while the client was on bail for the first set of matters. The client was sentenced for all matters at Harrow Crown Court on 2nd August 2024, by a Recorder receiving an admittedly rather lenient 32 months total sentence (other matters of obstructing and assaulting police and possessing a blade at the time of the drug arrests being sentenced concurrently to the PWITS.)

However, events took a surprising turn when, five days later, the Recorder issued an email indicating an intention to increase the total sentence to 40 months, citing the slip-rule—a power permitting correction of clerical or material errors in sentencing decisions.

Challenging the Use of the Slip-Rule

Matthew Humphreys acted swiftly to protect his client’s interests. In an effort to avert a potential injustice to the client, Matthew requested access to the crown court audio recording (DARTS) of the initial sentencing hearing in order to confirm the sentence pronounced. This was refused, the Recorder indicating that she had attempted to do this herself but that the recording appeared not to be functioning on the day in question.

Relying on both his detailed notes and corroboration from the prosecution counsel, he confirmed that the 32-month sentence was accurately recorded at the time of the hearing. Additional evidence, including the Warrant for Custodial Sentence issued to the prison, further supported this position. Despite these efforts, during a subsequent hearing on August 15, the Recorder proceeded to resentence the defendant to the higher 40-month term, citing the slip-rule.

Deeply concerned at the course of events, and in particular being of the view that the Recorder had erred in using the slip-rule in this way, Matthew examined a number of prior reported CACD decisions concerning the use of the slip-rule and found support for his position. The wording of the legislation does not set any limitation on the use of the power, but the CACD has done so in their judgements.

In particular, in the 2017 case of Warren the CACD held that

“A judge should not use the slip rule simply because there is a change of mind about the nature or length of the sentence but the slip rule is available where the judge is persuaded that he had made a material error in the sentencing process whether of fact or law …” – no material error having been identified in our case.

Further, in the recent judgement in Luxton (a case primarily concerned with unrelated issues but which includes some discussion of the slip-rule), the CACD affirmed the above finding in Warren and went on to state

“There must be some finality to decision making and a judge should avoid revisiting reasonable decisions. Judges are busy people and do not have time to do every case twice. It is unkind to victims, defendants and others involved in the proceedings and disruptive to the conduct of other cases to convene post-sentencing hearings where they are unnecessary. Where, however, a judge considers that a sentence was, on reflection, wrong (not necessarily in the sense of the tests which the Court of Appeal would apply on an appeal or a reference of an unduly lenient sentence) there is no statutory limit on the freedom to change it. Particular care should be exercised before deciding that a sentence should have been more severe than it was and, in general, a judge would only do so where there was some objective basis for reaching that conclusion. That is a conclusion based on fairness and humanity, rather than on some limit to the power to be found in statute.”

Court of Appeal

It should be noted that the CACD were able to obtain transcriptions from DARTS of both the initial sentencing hearing on 2nd August and the slip-rule hearing on 15th August, and indicated they had taken great care to examine the Recorder’s remarks on both occasions. It is unclear why the Recorder was unable to listen to the DARTS recording of 2nd August.

While acknowledging that the original 32-month sentence was exceptionally lenient, the judges expressed concern over the Recorder’s misuse of the slip-rule. They reiterated the importance of finality in sentencing decisions and fairness to all parties involved.

Ultimately, the Court quashed the higher sentence imposed on August 15 and reinstated the original 32-month term.

This decision underscores the critical role of meticulous preparation and a thorough understanding of judicial procedure in safeguarding client rights. Matthew Humphreys’ success not only highlights his expertise but also reinforces the principle that sentencing must adhere to established legal standards.

About the Instructing Solicitor

Matthew Humphreys joined Duncan Lewis in October 2022 as a solicitor in the Crime department at the City of London office. With extensive experience in criminal defence, he represents clients at all levels of the criminal process, from initial police station interviews to trials and sentencing before magistrates and crown courts.

Matthew has notable success in cases involving bladed articles and offensive weapons, securing acquittals and mitigating to avoid immediate custody. His expertise extends to extradition law and prison disciplinary matters, demonstrating a broad and dedicated commitment to criminal defence. Contact him via email at MatthewH@Duncanlewis.com or via telephone on 07342 081740.

Duncan Lewis Solicitors

The Duncan Lewis Crime and Fraud Department, recommended by The Legal 500 and ranked as a ‘top-ranked’ criminal practice in the independent legal directory Chambers & Partners UK, is renowned for its well-prepared, high-quality work and the ability to assemble first-rate evidence and documentation.

We regularly represent our clients at police stations, magistrates’ courts, crown courts, and at appeal courts such as the Court of Appeal. Our clients know they can rely on a prompt and effective service, and many use our services repeatedly.