No: 9702649 Z4

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
                               Royal Courts of Justice
                               The Strand
                               London WC2
 
                               Thursday 2nd October 1997
 
                    B E F O R E :

               LORD JUSTICE OTTON
 
                MR JUSTICE SACHS
 
                         and
 
          HIS HONOUR JUDGE RIVLIN QC
        (acting as a judge of the CACD)

             ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
 
                    R E G I N A

                       ‑ v ‑

            GARY CHRISTOPHER JOHNS
 
              ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
   Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
           Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
          180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
    Tel No: 0171 831 3183   Fax No: 0171 831 8838
         (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
              ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
 
MR PG O'DONOVAN appeared on behalf of the Applicant
 
              ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
                      JUDGMENT
          (As Approved by the Court)
              ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
                  Crown Copyright 
 
                           Thursday 2nd October 1997
 
                      JUDGMENT
 
LORD JUSTICE OTTON:  On 21st March 1996, at the Crown Court at Knightsbridge, the applicant, Gary Christopher Jones, pleaded guilty to breaking prison contrary to common law and he was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment concurrent to the life imprisonment which sentence he was then serving.  His co‑accused, Anthony Coughtrey, also pleaded guilty and he, too, was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment to run concurrent with his sentence of life imprisonment.  Today he has applied for leave to appeal against that sentence, and this Court has granted leave and will treat this hearing as the full appeal.
      The facts can be briefly stated.  The appellant and his co‑accused were both inmates at Wormwood Scrubs Prison as a consequence of their respective life sentences for murder.
      On the afternoon of 30th July 1995 they both escaped from their place of work in the prison.  They burned through the perimeter fence using oxyacetylene equipment and then used a ladder taken from the workshop to scale the outside wall. 
      It was alleged by the Crown that prior to the escape the two men had overpowered a civilian supervisor in the workshop, tying him up and threatening him.  The supervisor afterwards called for help.
      The appellant's case was that the civilian supervisor was a corrupt employee and had in fact helped to arrange the escape.  The jury clearly felt that there was some substance in that assertion as they acquitted both defendants of false imprisonment.
      Both men were subsequently arrested.
      The appellant is aged 31 and it is not necessary to go into his previous convictions save to say that he, on 8th August 1973, was sentenced to life imprisonment at Chelmsford Crown Court for murder.
      It is said that in all the circumstances this sentence of seven years cannot be justified in view of the fact that no violence was used nor any threats made, and that the escape was facilitated by the civilian employee.
      The matter came before the Full Court on 28th January 1997 on an application for leave to appeal against sentence of Coughtrey.  Leave having been given, on 19th February 1997 the Full Court reduced the sentence on Coughtrey to one of four years' imprisonment.  In reducing the sentence and allowing the  appeal McCowan LJ said as follows:
"If the offender is serving a determinate sentence, a consecutive sentence should almost invariably be imposed.  Obviously if he is serving a life sentence the sentence for breaking prison will have to be served concurrently.  But the length of it should usually be the same as it would have been had he been serving a determinate sentence.
 
The facts to be taken into account, in determining the length of sentence, will include (i) the nature and the circumstances of the crime for which he was in prison; (ii) his conduct while in prison; (iii) the methods employed in effecting escape and in particular whether any violence was involved and whether there was extensive planning and outside assistance; (iv) whether he surrendered himself and how soon and (v) a plea of guilty.
 
Taking into account all the relevant circumstances of this case, we conclude that seven years was manifestly excessive.  We think the right sentence would be four years to be served concurrently with his life sentence. To that extent this appeal is allowed." 
      Suffice it to say that we consider that we should approach the case of this appellant in exactly the same manner.  We see no reason to distinguish Johns' case from that of Coughtrey.  It was clearly a joint venture.  Accordingly we have decided that the sentence of seven years concurrent was manifestly excessive and to an extent that we should interfere.  We consider that the correct sentence should be one of four years to be served concurrently with the life sentence.  To that extent this appeal is allowed.