BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

B E F O R E :

and

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

R E G I N A

- v -

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

Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of

Smith Bernal Reporting Limited

180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD

Tel No: 0171 404 1400 Fax No: 0171 404 1424

(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

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

MR S BRASSINGTON appeared on behalf of the Appellant

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

JUDGMENT

( As Approved by the Court )

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

JUDGMENT

1. LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH: I will ask Mr Justice Mantell to give the judgment of the Court.

2. MR JUSTICE MANTELL: In the early hours of Monday 13th March 1995 the appellant, with two others, took part in a ram- raid at Boots the chemists in New Milton in Hampshire. For the purpose they used a stolen Vauxhall Senator motorcar. That car was later stopped. The appellant and the others were arrested. Stolen property was found in the boot.

3. In due course the appellant stood his trial at Southampton Crown Court where, on 1st May 1996, he was convicted of burglary, taking a conveyance without authority and driving whilst disqualified. He had earlier pleaded guilty to a further offence of driving whilst disqualified. For the burglary he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment and he received concurrent sentences of 12 months' imprisonment for the offences of taking a conveyance and driving whilst disqualified. In consequence the total sentence was one of four years' imprisonment but, in addition to that, he was disqualified from driving for seven years. The appeal to this Court, which is with leave of the Single Judge, is based on the proposition that the period of disqualification was too long, with no point being taken with regard to the term of imprisonment.

4. It is submitted that there is a principle of sentencing which requires a court not to impose a period of disqualification which will survive the term of imprisonment and thus represent a hindrance to rehabilitation. That is a well-recognised consideration, if not a principle, and we have been referred to a number of authorities which support it.

5. We agree that in the circumstances seven years was too long, and we propose to reduce the period of disqualification to four years, and to that extent the appeal will be allowed.

6. The sentences of 12 months' imprisonment which were imposed in relation to offences which had been sent to the Crown Court by the Magistrates' Court were wrong in law. The maximum which could have been imposed was one of six months in each case, and although it makes no effective difference to the total sentence, the record will be corrected accordingly.