R v Lewes Crown Court, ex parte Sinclair

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date06 July 1992
Date06 July 1992
CourtHouse of Lords

Queen's Bench Divisional Court

Before Lord Justice Watkins and Mr Justice Tucker

Regina
and
Lewes Crown Court, Ex parte Sinclair

Criminal procedure - warrant of imprisonment - jurisdiction

Challenge to warrant of imprisonment

A defendant who sought to argue that a warrant of imprisonment had not been correctly drawn up so as to reflect the sentence passed was challenging a matter relating to trial on indictment over which the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, rather than the Queen's Bench Divisional Court, had jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court so held, dismissing Alastair Lowrie Sinclair's application for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of Lewes Crown Court to draw up a warrant of imprisonment ordering his imprisonment for 3 1/2 years, to be served consecutively rather than concurrently to the sentence he was already serving.

Mr Francis Moraes for the applicant; Mr Mark Shaw, who did not appear below, for Lewes Crown Court.

LORD JUSTICE WATKINS said that the applicant's contention was that he had understood that the sentence of 3 1/2 years would run concurrently with the sentence he was already serving.

Indisputably, unless an order was made in open court that the judge was ordering a sentence to run consecutively to an existing sentence, it had to be taken that that sentence was to take effect forthwith.

However, the respondent had argued that the Divisional Court was without jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the proper forum to hear it was the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division.

In In re SmalleyELR ([1985] AC 622) it was held that the sentence process following a trial or a plea...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • WWRT Ltd v Serhiy Tyshchenko
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 2 August 2023
    ...While the commentary notes that the case law here is undeveloped, §5.56 refers to Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim (No. 6), Financial Times Law Reports, 23 July 1992, where Hoffman J held that there was “no doubt” that the court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction in circumstances where US p......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT