Peter Farbar [2019] EWCA Crim 1716

The appellant was convicted of two offences of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and admitted a Bail Act offence. He was sentenced to 6 years and 9 months for the assaults and a consecutive term of 9 months for the bail offence.

There were three issues in the appeal; whether the bail conviction should stand; whether 68 days in custody prior to extradition should count against sentence; and whether he should be allowed to adduce fresh evidence in respect of his mental health and, if so, what effect that might have on sentence.

The appellant’s sons were fighting with neighbours when the appellant became involved and stabbed the other two males. He then absconded to Slovakia.

Held: the conviction for failing to surrender could not stand. The offence was not one for which he was being extradited, that was in respect of the s18 offences alone. No consent to include the bail offence was sought, and there was no waiver of the specialty rule by the appellant. It was agreed that the judge fell into error when he refused to allow time spent in custody in Slovakia pending extradition to count against the sentence. Under s240ZA and 243 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 such days spent in custody do count, and the judge has no power to disallow these days. The 68 days were credited by adjusting the sentence.

The Court was not persuaded that the report should be taken into account even if it were to be admitted. The expert’s diagnosis was based almost wholly on the appellant’s anecdotal, self-reports.

The application to adduce the further evidence was refused, the sentence for the bail offence was quashed, and the sentences for the assaults adjust to allow credit for the time on remand.