Zachary Langley [2019] EWCA Crim 1524
- Summary
- Citing
- Cited By
R v Zachary Matthew Langley [2019] EWCA Crim 1524 concerned an appeal by Mr Langley against the duration of a Serious Crime Prevention Order that had been amended so as to continue “until further order”.
Mr Langley was convicted on 23 April 2012 of various fraud offences. On 18 May 2012 a Serious Crime Prevention Order was imposed, to commence upon his release from custody and to remain in force for five years. The order was subsequently amended on 23 August 2012 and 6 January 2014. On 23 September 2016 in the Crown Court at Bournemouth, Mr Langley pleaded guilty to further fraud offences and two counts of failing to comply with the SCPO. On 14 November 2016 he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for the first fraud, two years consecutive for failing to comply with the SCPO, and 18 months consecutive for the second fraud. The other sentences imposed were concurrent.
On 15 November 2016 the judge acceded to the Crown’s application to vary the SCPO. The amendment provided that the order was to commence upon Mr Langley’s release from custody and to continue until further order. The application was not opposed by defence counsel.
Although it was accepted that the original order had been properly imposed, Mr Langley submitted that the amendment to the duration made on 15 November 2016 was unlawful. The Crown agreed that the amendment purporting to direct that the SCPO was to be in force “until further order” was unlawful. The Crown submitted that the order should instead be amended so that it remained in force for five years following Mr Langley’s release from custody.
The court agreed with the parties. Under section 16(2) of the Serious Crime Act 2007, an SCPO is not to be in force for more than five years from the coming into force of the order. Accordingly the amendment to specify that the SCPO would continue until further order was unlawful. The court granted permission to appeal, observing that an extension of time of approximately two years and four months was required and granting that extension given the suggested illegality of the order. The court allowed the appeal to the extent that it directed that the order be amended so that it remained in force for five years following Mr Langley’s release from custody. In short, the amendment making the SCPO indefinite was unlawful and was replaced with a five-year term in compliance with section 16(2) of the Serious Crime Act 2007.