Full One-Third Plea Credit Preserved When Plea Is Delayed Only for Fitness-to-Plead Assessment and Intention Is Recorded

Case: Muhammad, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1316

Court: England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Judgment date: 26 September 2025

Introduction

This appeal concerns the proper level of reduction for a guilty plea where the defendant’s plea was deferred solely to obtain a psychiatric assessment of fitness to plead. The appellant had been sentenced to an extended sentence of eight years (a custodial term of five years and an extended licence period of three years) for stalking causing serious alarm or distress, contrary to section 4A(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The single ground of appeal was that the sentencing judge afforded only 25% credit for the guilty plea rather than one-third.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that full one-third credit was required under the Sentencing Council guideline “Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea” where the only reason for the delay was the need to obtain psychiatric confirmation of fitness to plead, and the defendant’s intention to plead guilty had been recorded contemporaneously on the Better Case Management (BCM) form. The decision applies and reinforces R v Nolan [2022] EWCA Crim 726.

The case is practically significant for criminal practitioners: it clarifies that defendants are not to be penalised in plea credit for responsibly seeking psychiatric assessment of fitness to plead, provided that there is a clear, timely record of intention to plead guilty and the plea is entered at the first reasonable opportunity after fitness is confirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

• The appellant conducted a prolonged campaign of stalking between 2019 and November 2022, including covert surveillance, tampering with property and CCTV, and placing notes, causing substantial fear and distress.
• He was arrested in November 2022; the case progressed to the Crown Court. A psychiatric assessment was sought due to concerns about fitness to plead. The BCM form recorded that the case would be admitted subject to confirmation of fitness.
• Upon receiving the psychiatrist’s opinion (Dr Stoddart) that the appellant was fit to plead, he pleaded guilty at the next opportunity on 14 May 2024.
• The sentencing judge treated the plea as warranting only 25% credit, leading to a five-year custodial term within an extended sentence (with an additional three-year extended licence).
• The Court of Appeal held that full one-third credit should have been applied under the “Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea” guideline, section D1 read with the exception in section F1, and as explained in R v Nolan.
• Outcome: The custodial element was reduced from five years (60 months) to 56 months (one-third off a notional trial sentence of 84 months). The extended licence period and other ancillary orders remained in place.

Factual and Procedural Background

The offending involved repeated stalking behaviours at and around the complainant’s properties: lurking in gardens, attempts to interfere with window locks, surveillance, tampering with and disabling CCTV equipment (including spray-painting doorbell and rear cameras), and placing handwritten notes. The conduct caused the complainant to relocate, install security systems at significant expense, and suffer marked stress. Eventually, CCTV captured the appellant; his Risk Management Officer recognised him; and police recovered items (gloves and a jacket) consistent with the footage, alongside corroborative call data and a handwritten note linking him to the offending.

Before the Magistrates’ Court (3 April 2024), the BCM form indicated the matter “would be admitted,” but counsel awaited psychiatric assessment due to concerns about fitness to plead. Dr James Stoddart’s report (23 May 2024) concluded the appellant was fit to plead and that no psychiatric condition significantly impaired the capacity to form the necessary intent. On 14 May 2024, counsel informed the Crown Court that the psychiatrist had confirmed fitness, and the appellant immediately entered a guilty plea. The trial listing was vacated.

At sentence on 24 December 2024, the Recorder categorised the case as high culpability and top category for harm, adopted a notional post-trial custodial term of 84 months, and applied a 25% credit (rounded) to reach 60 months, then imposed an extended licence of three years. The appeal argued that, on a proper application of the plea credit guideline and the Nolan exception, one-third credit should have been given.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

The Court grounded its decision in two sources:

• Sentencing Council guideline “Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea”:
  • Section D1 provides a one-third reduction where a guilty plea is indicated at the first stage of proceedings (the first hearing at which a plea or an indication is sought and recorded).
  • Section F1 (Exceptions) provides that if particular circumstances significantly reduced the defendant’s ability to understand what was alleged, or otherwise made it unreasonable to expect an earlier indication of a guilty plea, the one-third reduction “should still be made.”
• R v Nolan [2022] EWCA Crim 726:
  • Nolan approved obtaining psychiatric evidence where mental ill-health and fitness to plead are live issues.
  • It held that where the defendant pleads guilty at the first opportunity after receiving psychiatric advice confirming fitness, and where delay was not tactical, the F1 exception applies and one-third credit is due.

The Court of Appeal in Muhammad expressly aligned the facts with Nolan, noting that the BCM form already recorded an intention to plead guilty, contingently upon fitness. This is a key evidential distinction that made the application of F1 straightforward.

Legal Reasoning

The Court took a principled approach anchored in the purpose of the plea credit regime: to encourage early acceptance of guilt while ensuring fairness where a defendant cannot reasonably be expected to plead earlier. The reasoning unfolded as follows:

• First stage of proceedings and timing: Although the appellant did not plead at the initial Crown Court mention on 1 May 2024, this was because the court properly deferred arraignment pending the psychiatric evaluation of fitness to plead. The “first stage” at which an indication could be appropriately sought and recorded was therefore deferred for good reason outside the defendant’s control.
• Particular circumstances under F1: Fitness-to-plead assessment plainly qualifies as a “particular circumstance” that can render it unreasonable to expect a defendant to plead sooner. The Court expressly observed that seeking a psychiatric report was “wholly appropriate” given the nature of the offending and the background.
• Evidence of non-tactical delay: The BCM form recorded an intention to admit the offence subject to the fitness report. The appellant then pleaded guilty at the first practical opportunity after receiving the report. This mirrors the paradigm in Nolan and negates any suggestion of tactical delay.
• Application of the guideline: With the F1 exception engaged, the appropriate credit was one-third, not 25%. The Court recalculated the custodial term accordingly.

On the arithmetic, the Recorder had determined a notional post-trial custodial term of 84 months. A one-third reduction equates to 28 months, producing a custodial term of 56 months. The Court therefore quashed the five-year custodial element and substituted 56 months, leaving the three-year extended licence and ancillary orders intact.

Impact and Significance

The decision consolidates the application of the F1 exception to defendants whose pleas are delayed solely due to bona fide fitness-to-plead assessments. Its practical effects include:

• Clear guidance for courts: Judges should treat the first “reasonable” opportunity to plead as occurring after a fitness assessment where such an assessment is properly commissioned, and should award one-third plea credit where the defendant then pleads promptly.
• Importance of the BCM form: A contemporaneous record indicating an intention to plead guilty (subject to fitness) is powerful evidence against any inference of tactical delay. Defence practitioners should ensure this is recorded and brought expressly to the sentencing court’s attention.
• No penalty for responsible case management: The judgment reassures defendants and practitioners that engaging responsibly with mental health issues will not erode plea credit, aligning procedural fairness with public protection objectives.
• Stability of dangerousness findings: Adjusting plea credit does not disturb a properly reasoned extended sentence where the statutory risk threshold is met; here, the significant risk finding remained, as did the extended licence and restraining order.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Fitness to plead: This is a defendant’s ability to understand the proceedings, instruct lawyers, and make decisions (including entering a plea). If fitness is in doubt, courts typically defer arraignment and commission psychiatric reports. A defendant should not be expected to plead until found fit.
• Better Case Management (BCM) form: A standard case management document used early in criminal proceedings. It records issues including anticipated pleas. A note stating “will be admitted, subject to fitness” can be crucial in establishing an early intention to plead guilty.
• First stage of proceedings (plea credit): Under the Sentencing Council guideline, a plea at the first stage normally attracts one-third credit. If particular circumstances make it unreasonable to expect a plea earlier (e.g., pending fitness assessment), the one-third credit still applies when the plea is entered at the first reasonable opportunity thereafter.
• Extended sentence (structure): An extended sentence comprises a custodial term plus an extended period on licence in the community. The plea discount applies to the custodial term, not to the length of the extended licence. Release and supervision under extended sentences are designed to manage ongoing risk to the public.
• Restraining order (indefinite): A court order designed to protect a victim from further harassment or stalking. “Indefinite” means it remains in force until varied or discharged by a court.

Practical Takeaways for Practitioners

• Where fitness to plead is genuinely in issue, obtain psychiatric evidence promptly and record the position on the BCM form.
• Ensure the court is expressly taken to the BCM entry at sentence; do not assume the record speaks for itself.
• On receipt of a fitness report confirming fitness, arrange for immediate arraignment and enter the guilty plea at the next available hearing.
• When addressing plea credit, cite the Sentencing Council guideline (D1 and F1) and R v Nolan; emphasise the non-tactical nature of the delay.
• In extended sentence cases, remember that the discount adjusts the custodial term; the extended licence is not reduced by plea credit.

Conclusion

R v Muhammad [2025] EWCA Crim 1316 confirms and sharpens a crucial principle at the intersection of mental health and sentencing: a defendant should receive full one-third guilty plea credit where the plea is delayed solely for a legitimate fitness-to-plead assessment, especially where an intention to plead guilty is recorded contemporaneously. By aligning with R v Nolan and the Sentencing Council guideline’s F1 exception, the Court of Appeal ensures that defendants are not penalised for responsibly addressing mental health concerns before entering pleas. The decision also underlines the evidential value of BCM entries and careful advocacy at sentence. While the Court left the extended licence and ancillary protective orders undisturbed, it corrected the custodial term to reflect the proper one-third reduction, moving the focus back to principled, fair application of the plea credit regime in cases involving psychiatric assessment.