The Court of Appeal held that a direction as to the amount of a new sentence to be served cumulatively upon an existing uncompleted sentence under s 16(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 falls within the statutory definition of 'total effective sentence' in s 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, and therefore s 280(1)(b) empowers the Court to refuse leave to appeal where there is no reasonable prospect of reducing that cumulation order, even where sentencing error is established. The Court found the sentencing judge erred in finding 'some planning and pre-agreement' beyond reasonable doubt where the prosecution opening was consistent with spontaneous participation, but refused leave because there was no reasonable prospect of reducing the 15-month cumulation order given the seriousness of the offending, the applicant's extensive criminal history, poor rehabilitation prospects, and limited mitigation.
The full text is available to signed-in members.