Courts should consider coronavirus emergency when sentencing, rules Court of Appeal

12 May 2020 by

Manning, R. v (Rev 1) [2020] EWCA Crim 592 (30 April 2020) — judgment here

On 30 April 2019, giving the lead judgment in the Court of Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice considered that the impact of a custodial sentence is likely to be heavier during the coronavirus pandemic than it would otherwise be, and that this was a factor that judges and magistrates can and should keep in mind when sentencing.


The offender in this case had entered a guilty plea to four counts of sexual activity with a child, contrary to s.9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (counts 1 to 4 below), and to one count of Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, contrary to s.10(1) (count 5 below). At the relevant times the victim was fifteen and the offender was 47. The offender met the victim through playing darts together, but their friendship turned sexual when he:

  1. kissed the victim four or five times at social club;
  2. kissed and touched her breast at a second meeting;
  3. kissed her and placed her hand on his penis, over his clothing on a third meeting;
  4. as above on a fourth meeting; and
  5. incited her to take engage in penetrative sexual activity, which did not take place.

On 24 February 2020, in the Crown Court at Bristol, he was sentenced to a suspended sentence order of 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months as well as a tagged curfew requirement between 9pm and 6pm, a rehabilitation order of 30 days, a sexual harm prevention order for seven years and a restraining order preventing him from contacting the victim or her family for five years. He was also required to pay £7,500 in compensation and £1,200 in costs.

The Solicitor General considered the sentence to be unduly lenient and appealed, under s.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, for leave to refer it to the Court of Appeal.

The Appeal

On appeal, the Court applied the sentencing guidelines, taking into consideration usual factors such as the offender’s guilty plea, his previous good character, his disabilities, naivety and immaturity. The Lord Chief Justice concluded that the starting point in this case should have been in the region of 30 months’ imprisonment, discounted to 2 years on account of the offender’s guilty plea. The sentence was therefore unduly lenient in terms of length.

However the most interesting issue in this case was whether the sentence would remain a suspended sentence.

The court had regard to the usual guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences, and again took into account usual factors. It weighed the risk that he posed to the public against his strong mitigation, his prospects of rehabilitation, his compliance with the requirements and his commitment to addressing his offending behaviour.

What made this case stand out was the passage where the Lord Chief Justice turned his mind to the present crisis. At [41] he said:

We would mention one other factor of relevance. We are hearing this Reference at the end of April 2020, when the nation remains in lock-down as a result of the Covid-19 emergency. The impact of that emergency on prisons is well-known. […] The current conditions in prisons represent a factor which can properly be taken into account in deciding whether to suspend a sentence. In accordance with established principles, any court will take into account the likely impact of a custodial sentence upon an offender and, where appropriate, upon others as well. Judges and magistrates can, therefore, and in our judgment should, keep in mind that the impact of a custodial sentence is likely to be heavier during the current emergency than it would otherwise be.

Also at [41], examples of the increased impact of a custodial sentence during the crisis were given, in particular the fact that

Those in custody are, for example, confined to their cells for much longer periods than would otherwise be the case – currently, 23 hours a day. They are unable to receive visits. Both they and their families are likely to be anxious about the risk of the transmission of Covid-19.

In light of this, the court allowed the Solicitor General’s application only to the extent that it substituted for the custodial term of 12 months, a custodial term of 24 months. The sentence, however, remained suspended and all other orders were unaffected.


The impact of the COVID-19 virus on the UK’s prison population has been widely reported in recent weeks. Last month, The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust released Public Health England documents which warned that the worst case scenario for the prison system could see 3,500 deaths from the virus.

Some insight into the situation inside the UK’s prisons is found in the personal account given by an anonymised inmate to the New Statesman on 2 May 2020. He explains how

communal showers, laundry procedures, the need for exercise, and healthcare facilities limit the true meaning of social distancing.

Also on 2 May 2020, writing for The Lancet World Report, Talha Burki reported that prisons internationally are “in no way equipped” to deal with COVID-19. At the time that report went to press, COVID-19 had already been detected in the majority of UK prisons and at least 15 prisoners and four members of staff have died after being infected.

Burki further reported that UK prisons are running at 107% capacity. Whilst the government has pledged to release 4,000 prisoners to alleviate the risk of COVID-19 transmission, the Prison Governors Association reportedly estimates that 15,000 inmates (almost a fifth of the prison population) would have to be let out if prisoners were to not share cells.

Considering the crowded, unsanitary conditions faced by many prisoners, the Court of Appeal’s decision is likely to be welcome news to those seeking to keep prison populations down and slow the spread of the virus amongst prison staff and inmates. 

Samuel March is a paralegal and student on the Bar Professional Training Course.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: