Criminal Cases Review Commission
CCRC refers the sentence of Gavin Trendell to the Court of Appeal
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (‘CCRC’) has referred to the Court of Appeal the sentence which Mr Trendell received for causing grievous bodily harm with intent and false imprisonment.
On 6 July 2018, Mr Trendell pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent and false imprisonment. On 12 October 2018 Mr Trendell was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 8 years. The minimum term was later reduced to 6 years on appeal. In cases, such as Mr Trendell’s, where an indeterminate sentence is imposed, the minimum term must be adjusted by the judge to take into account any time spent on remand in custody, in accordance with section 82A(3)(b) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Mr Trendell spent 203 days on remand, however this was not addressed at either the sentencing hearing or, later, on appeal.
The CCRC has decided to refer Mr Trendell’s sentence to the Court of Appeal, on the basis that there is a real possibility that the Court will correct the legal error which has occurred with Mr Trendell’s sentence and will deduct 203 days from the minimum term which he has to serve before he can be considered for release.
The CCRC notes the possibility that this same sentencing error may have occurred in other cases. If anyone believes that they have been similarly denied the credit to which they are entitled for time spent in custody on remand, then they should consider challenging their sentence. Guidance on the relevant sentencing law principles is available here: www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/sentencing-overview (‘Time Spent on Remand’).
This press release was issued by the Communications Team, Criminal Cases Review Commission. They can be contacted by phone on 0121 232 0900 or by email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Notes for Editors
- The Commission is an independent body set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It is responsible for independently reviewing suspected and alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is based in Birmingham and is funded by the Ministry of Justice.
- There are currently 11 Commissioners who bring to the Commission considerable experience from a wide variety of backgrounds. Commissioners are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in accordance with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.
- The Commission usually receives around 1,400 applications for reviews (convictions and/or sentences) each year. Since starting work in 1997, the CCRC has referred around 3% of applications to the appeal courts.
- The Commission considers whether, as a result of new evidence or argument, there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made. New evidence or argument is argument or evidence which has not been raised during the trial or on appeal. Applicants should usually have appealed first. A case can be referred in the absence of new evidence or argument or an earlier appeal only if there are “exceptional circumstances”.
- If a case is referred, it is then for the appeal court to decide whether the conviction is unsafe or the sentence unfair.
- More details about the role and work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission can be found at www.ccrc.gov.uk The Commission can be found on Twitter using @ccrcupdate
Latest News from
Criminal Cases Review Commission
CCRC refers “no passport” conviction to the Crown Court06/09/2021 12:20:00
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”) has referred the conviction of Ms G to the Crown Court.
CCRC refers fourth “Stockwell Six” conviction to Court of Appeal20/08/2021 12:20:00
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”) yesterday referred Mr Texo Johnson’s 1972 conviction for assault with intent to rob to the Court of Appeal.
CCRC ‘delighted’ that member of the ‘Stockwell Six’ found following appeal27/07/2021 12:20:00
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has managed to trace a missing member of ‘The Stockwell Six’ after launching a recent appeal to find two more men they believe were also wrongly convicted.
CCRC releases response to Independent Criminal Legal Aid review: ‘improving the availability and delivery of high-quality legal advice is important for potential applicants’16/06/2021 12:25:00
Following its recent response to the University of Sussex report on legal aid, the CCRC has also fed into the consultation on the same topic – led by the Independent Criminal Legal Aid Review (ICLAR).
Criminal Cases Review Commission says ‘urgent improvements needed in legal aid funding’ in response to University of Sussex research report09/06/2021 09:20:00
After the University of Sussex published its findings into legal aid last month, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) recently (07 June 2021) shared its official response to the recommendations made.
CCRC releases official response to the Westminster Commission report03/06/2021 10:10:00
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has published its response to the Westminster Commission’s report: “In the Interests of Justice – An inquiry into the Criminal Cases Review Commission”.
Three new Commissioners appointed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission24/05/2021 11:43:00
Three new Commissioners have been appointed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
Spotlight on legal aid in commissioned report published by Sussex University20/05/2021 11:05:00
An insightful report: “The Criminal Cases Review Commission: Legal Aid and Legal Representatives,” has been published by Sussex University, after the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) called for research exploring the effects of legal aid changes on applications made to the CCRC.
39 Convictions Quashed in Post Office Cases23/04/2021 13:30:00
The Court of Appeal has today (Friday 23 April) quashed the convictions in 39 Post Office cases after they were referred for appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). The Court concluded that failures of investigation and disclosure by Post Office Limited were “so egregious as to make the prosecution of any of the Horizon cases an affront to the conscience of the court”.