[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 >> CC, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 524 (16 February 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/524.html Cite as: [2011] EWCA Crim 524

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		16 February 2011

1. THE COMMON SERJEANT: CC is 35 years of age and a Turkish national. He appeared on 12th January 2011 at the Crown Court sitting at Leeds before His Honour Judge Hoffman having returned the day before from Turkey and there being in existence an outstanding warrant for his arrest. He was charged with failing to surrender to his bail. He pleaded guilty on that day. Two days later, on 14th January 2011, he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, with the two days spent on remand to count against the sentence.
2. There is on this count an automatic right to appeal against sentence and so this matter has been referred to the Full Court in a timely manner by the Registrar.
3. The background is this. Originally he was arrested and charged with rape. On 27th July 2009 he was due to surrender to the Crown Court but he failed to appear and thus the warrant was issued. He had fled to his native Turkey. The trial proceeded in his absence. It proceeded in May 2010 between the 18th and the 20th and the end result was acquittal. He has no known previous convictions.
4. The learned judge in his sentencing remarks said he was making it clear that the appellant was being sentenced for this matter and not for being found not guilty on the rape count. It was nonetheless a serious attempt both to evade justice and to undermine the course of justice. The learned judge then outlined various things that had happened in the course of the trial. But he noted there had been a lengthy absence and thus a sentence towards the top end of the bracket should be merited.
5. The written grounds are short and simple: too high a starting point and failure to take sufficient account of the plea. Miss Robinson this morning has underlined succinctly and helpfully those grounds.
6. We have had the opportunity to consider this matter. This was a serious and a deliberate offence and it did show a complete disregard to the criminal justice system and to the court. Nevertheless, there must be a clear distinction between that attitude and his bizarre behaviour in conducting the trial whilst he was out of the jurisdiction. In our judgment the sentence in what is a most unusual and probably unique case is too high. It must be marked by an appropriate sentence which is towards the top end, but we think in our judgment the justice of the case can be met by a sentence of six months. We will quash the original sentence of nine months and substitute a sentence of six months. To that extent the appeal is allowed.