The headline pretty much sums up the story – Daniel Sledden was convicted of supplying cannabis was sentenced by HHJ Lunt. He received a two-year suspended sentence. Understandably over-joyed at not facing a stretch inside, just minutes after his sentencing hearing was concluded, Sledden took to Facebook to express his jubilation:
“Cannot believe my luck 2 year suspended sentence beats the 3 year jail yes pal! Beverly Lunt go suck my cock.”
The judge became aware of this message and decided to vary the sentence under the ‘slip rule’ – the slip rule allows the court to re-visit the sentence within 56 days of the original sentence.
Sledden then posted an apology on his Facebook page:
“I want to say how sorry I am for what I wrote about Judge Lunt and my sentence. I was very lucky not to be sent to prison and I was very stupid to have written what I did. I want to say sorry to Judge Lunt and to anyone else who was upset or offended by my thoughtless post which I did not mean.”
On 16 February 2016, both men were returned to court and remanded in custody until 26 February 2016.
The judge said:
“It is plain they were never intending for me to see it, so they are not harassing me.” It appears, according to the Guardian’s report of the hearing, that the judge rejected the possibility that the messages constituted either a criminal offence or a contempt of court.
The Guardian reported that ‘Lunt said remorse and contrition was “a vital component” when considering sentencing but the length of the jail terms were not wrong.’
“It is the issue of suspension. Would I have done so had I appreciated, as I do now, their true views and what they really thought of the court proceedings?”
There will be a hearing on 26 February 2016 where the judge will determine whether or the sentences should be varied.
Comment
As can be seen the facts are rather sparse. We can’t comment on the original sentence, and whether that was in fact lenient or not.
As for the decision to vary the sentence under the slip rule, it remains to be seen what the judge will do. The slip rule is not designed to allow the courts to increase a sentence where the judge has had a think and decided that the original sentence was a bit too lenient – it is designed to enable the court to rectify mistakes of law or where the sentence has been imposed on an incorrect basis.
That is the issue here: do the Facebook posts demonstrate that the remorse and contrition relied upon as mitigation at the original sentencing hearing were false? If so, a variation would be permissible and there is case law to support such a proposition. If not, the situation is more unclear. In our view, the judge would not be entitled to vary the sentence.
We’ll keep an eye out and update this post after the hearing.