BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Hussain, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 274 (04 March 2025)
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/274.html
Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 274

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 274
CASE NO 202500172/A3

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT BURNLEY
HHJ JEFFERIES KCT20220161

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
4 March 2025

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE EDIS
MR JUSTICE MARTIN SPENCER
THE RECORDER OF COVENTRY
HIS HONOUR JUDGE LOCKHART KC
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
____________________

REX
- v -
MAHMOOD HUSSAIN

____________________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: [email protected]
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

NON-COUNSEL APPLICATION
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT APPROVED
 ____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    MR JUSTICE MARTIN SPENCER:

  1. The Registrar of Criminal Appeals has referred to the full court Mr Hussain's application for an extension of time of 242 days in order to apply for leave to appeal against sentence, his application otherwise being out of time. We grant the extension of time and we grant leave to appeal.

  2. The sole issue on this appeal is whether the sentencing court should have directed that the credit period due to the appellant by reason of his having been subject to a bail condition of a curfew with electronic monitoring should have been directed to count as time served as part of the sentence, pursuant to section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

  3. The background facts are that the appellant was sentenced on 15 April 2024 by His Honour Judge Andrew Jefferies KC sitting in the Crown Court at Burnley to a total term of 4½ years' imprisonment for offences of assisting unlawful immigration to a Member State, contrary to section 355(1) of the Immigration Act 1971. Prior to 15 April, on 1 December 2023 the appellant was granted conditional bail pending sentence with the following conditions: (a) to live and sleep each night at 273 Chapel House Road, Nelson BB9 0QU, (b) to observe a curfew between the hours of 8.00 pm and 7.00 am electronically monitored, (c) to report to Burnley Police Station every Wednesday and Saturday between 10 and 12, and (d) not to apply for any travel documents of any description.

  4. However, at the sentencing hearing neither counsel for the prosecution or defence reminded the court that Mr Hussain had by that date served 135 days on a qualifying tagged curfew. Consequently the learned judge did not make a direction under section 325 of the 2020 Act that the days that Mr Hussain spent on tagged curfew be taken into account as part of his sentence. This failure came to the attention of the appellant's solicitors on 11 December 2024, hence the late application and the need for an extension of time.

  5. By section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020 where the court passes a determinate sentence on an offender in respect of an offence, the offender was remanded on bail and the bail was subject to a qualifying curfew condition and an electronic monitoring condition, the court must specify the credit period for the purposes of section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which deals with time remanded on bail to count towards time served in relation to the sentence.

  6. In Hoggard [2013] EWCA Crim 1024 it was decided that there is no discretion not to give a direction under section 325 or to give a direction as to a period of days less than the credit period. In the present case it is agreed that the credit period which should have been specified is 68 days.

  7. In Marshall [2015] EWCA Crim 1999, it was stated that in cases where the credit is not specified by the sentencing court in accordance with section 325 and 56 days expired before the error is spotted, an application must be made to the Court of Appeal and the error cannot be corrected under the slip rule. Hence the need for this application.

  8. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and order that 68 days should count towards service of the appellant's sentence and that the certificate of conviction should be amended to read:

    9. "A sentence of four years and six months (expressed as 54 months) less 68 days certified pursuant to section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020."

    Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.

    Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE

    Tel No: 020 7404 1400

    Email: [email protected]

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/274.html