The Supreme Court has left Maurice Colbert’s four-year sentences for sexual assaults against a child in place, but ordered that they run from 5 February 2010. Taking account of his release on bail and standard remission, the Court deemed the sentence served.
The ruling, delivered on 28 November 2016, arose from an appeal about how time in custody and a change in the appellant’s criminal record should affect sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeal had dismissed his sentence appeal in July 2013, finding no error in principle, but certified two questions of exceptional public importance for the Supreme Court.
Colbert had been convicted of 10 sexual assaults against victim A and sentenced to four years on each count, to run concurrently. At that sentencing, the judge took account of his convictions for rape and other offences against victim B. Those convictions were later quashed, and the Director of Public Prosecutions subsequently entered a nolle prosequi on the related charges. By the time the sentence appeal was heard, Colbert had no prior convictions.
The Supreme Court said the trial judge had been entitled to consider the convictions against victim B when imposing sentence: they were part of the record at the time. But the appellate court also had to consider the later change. Colbert’s relevant prior convictions had been removed between sentencing and appeal, a change that bore directly on the sentencing assessment.
The Court also addressed custody before trial. It said time spent in custody in relation to an offence should be put before the sentencing judge and considered when setting an appropriate sentence. Whether that custody coincided with imprisonment or remand for other offences may matter. The Court declined to give rigid answers to the certified questions, saying the circumstances of custody vary from case to case.
In this case, Colbert had surrendered bail on the charges concerning victim A after being convicted of offences against victim B. Once those convictions were quashed, the Supreme Court considered the custody from 5 February 2010 to be exclusively referable to the offences against victim A.
The Court nevertheless found no error in principle in the four-year sentences. It described the offences as very serious and noted their marked impact on victim A. It did not reduce the sentence. Instead, it backdated its commencement to 5 February 2010. Given that Colbert had been released on bail on 4 February 2013 and the Court took account of the standard 25 per cent remission for good behaviour, it deemed the sentence served.