Where a defendant's licence was revoked under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1991, a sentence for an offence committed whilst released on licence could not be ordered to run consecutively with the sentence currently being served, unless it was ordered to do so under s.116 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.Appeal, with leave of the single judge, against the lawfulness of a sentence ordered to run consecutively with a sentence currently being served following revocation of the defendant's ('B') licence. B had been released on licence from prison where he had been serving a two year sentence, when he committed the offence of burglary. B's licence was revoked under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1991 and he was returned to prison. B was sentenced for the burglary on 12 May 2003 and the judge made clear that the sentence was to run consecutively with the sentence currently being served and was therefore, not to commence until 11 April 2004. B appealed sentence on the ground that the sentence was unlawful as it should not have been ordered to run consecutively.HELD: (1) S.34 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 made it clear that the courts should not order a sentence to commence at the end of a previous sentence. It was clear from Archbold 5128 that where an offender was released on licence and an offence was committed, the licence could be revoked under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1991. Any sentence for the later offence must not be ordered to run consecutively. However, if the order was made under s.116 of the 2000 Act then the sentence could run consecutively (see R v Hawthorn (2001) 1 Cr App R (S) 136). (2) The provisions of the Act needed careful attention where there was an unserved period and the licence was revoked. The judge could have used his powers under s.116 of the 2000 Act but he didn't, he ordered the sentence to run consecutively and he was not allowed to do so lawfully. Accordingly the sentence imposed must be declared to run from 12 May 2003, the date it was imposed.Appeal allowed.