The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused Noel Holland’s application to certify a legal question for an appeal to the Supreme Court, finding that it was hypothetical and did not raise a point of exceptional public importance.
The application concerned a sentence imposed by the Central Criminal Court in February 2011: eight years’ imprisonment, with the final three years suspended on conditions, and five years of post-release supervision. The court said the sentence’s effect, subject to compliance with the conditions, was that Holland would serve five years in prison. With remission for good behaviour, he might be released after three years and nine months.
Holland had previously challenged the sentence as potentially exceeding the statutory maximum of 10 years when imprisonment and post-release supervision were combined. The Court of Criminal Appeal refused leave to appeal against the sentence’s severity in October 2013. He then asked the court to certify whether a suspended part of a prison term could be excluded when calculating the aggregate term under section 29 of the Sex Offenders Act 2001.
In rejecting that request, the court said the proposed issue depended on a hypothetical possibility that Holland might have to serve the full eight-year prison term, for example if he reoffended or breached a bond condition. That contingency had not occurred, the court said, and it was not being asked to provide an advisory opinion. It added that any possible statutory issue arising if he reoffended would have to be addressed by the court sentencing him for that offence.
The court also noted a development since the original sentence. The only condition imposed on Holland’s post-release supervision was to keep away from his victim in perpetuity. The victim had since died, so that condition was no longer applicable. The court said it was therefore impossible to envisage how he could breach a condition of the sentence. It recorded that the Director of Public Prosecutions’ counsel rejected any suggestion that the drawn-up order should be read as including other conditions.
The court said the question arose from the unusual facts of this case and did not satisfy the requirements for certification. It refused the application. The ruling determined only whether the proposed point could be taken to the Supreme Court; it did not grant a further appeal or revisit the earlier refusal of leave to appeal the sentence.