Summary of Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

On 30 August 2023, on the fourth day of the appellant's trial at The Crown Court, after the jury had been sworn but before the case was opened, the Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of being concerned in the supply of a Class A controlled drug (count 5: crack cocaine; count 6: heroin). Counts of conspiracy to supply (counts 2 and 3) were left to lie on the file. On 2 February 2024 the Appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years and nine months' imprisonment on each count, ordered to run consecutively to a sentence of five years and eight months' imprisonment imposed on 20 November 2019. The Appellant appealed the 2024 sentences with leave.

The Appellant had prior drug-trafficking convictions (2009 and 2016) and had been sentenced in 2019 for offences connected to a county lines operation known as the "B line". For the 2019 offending the court applied the prescribed minimum term (seven years) and imposed five years and eight months after credit for plea. The index offending arose late 2020 when the B line was alleged to have resumed using different contact details; phones and messages linked the Appellant to the operation while serving the earlier sentence. The Appellant initially pleaded not guilty to the conspiracy counts and the trial was listed twice; there were contested pre-trial issues including admissibility of prison telephone calls. The guilty pleas to counts 5 and 6 followed multi-day submissions and an exchange between the judge and counsel about whether the defence would be permitted to pursue argument on admissibility.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the credit for the Appellant's guilty pleas was insufficient.
2. Whether the judge erred in refusing or not holding a Newton hearing and in finding the Appellant at fault for not giving evidence.
3. Whether the total sentence (ten years and nine months, consecutive to an existing sentence) was manifestly excessive.
4. Whether the disparity between the Appellant's sentence and that of the co-accused was excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The credit for guilty plea was insufficient and should be comparable to that afforded to the Co-Accused; reliance was placed on R v Sanghera [2016] 2 Cr App R(S) 15 regarding benefits of guilty pleas.
• The judge erred by relying on the prosecution's expert material (Officer Edwards) without a Newton hearing and by criticizing the Appellant for not giving evidence.
• The aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive; the judge raised the starting point (section 313 Sentencing Act 2020 effects) and then increased the notional sentence without justification; a sentence in the region of five years and eight months would have been appropriate.
• The disparity with the Co-Accused's sentence was excessive and indicative of unfairness ("the essential ground").

Respondent's Submissions

• The timing of the Appellant's plea (fourth day of trial listing) justified limited credit; there was no earlier approach to the prosecution to change plea.
• No invitation was given by the defence for a Newton hearing; the judge repeatedly offered a Newton hearing and the Appellant declined to give evidence; the judge was entitled to determine culpability on the uploaded evidence.
• Both Appellant and Co-Accused were assessed as having significant roles by the prosecution; differences in timing, prior convictions and custody status justified different outcomes between them.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the issues in sequence.

On credit for plea: the court applied the sentencing guideline on reduction for guilty plea and emphasised timing. The Appellant changed plea late in trial (fourth day of the second listing) after pursuing legal argument for several days. The judge's reduction of credit to two per cent was justified by the late plea; the court held that no credit or a very small credit would also have been open to the judge.

On the Newton hearing: the court accepted the judge's finding that a Newton hearing was unnecessary. The Appellant had accepted the evidence uploaded to the file (though not the prosecution's interpretation) and had indicated he would not give evidence. The judge had invited a Newton hearing and given the Appellant the chance to testify; having declined, the judge was entitled to decide culpability on the written and uploaded material, including the expert statement of Officer Edwards.

On sentencing and totality: the judge classified the Appellant's role as category 3 (significant role) and identified a starting point of 4.5 years (range 3.5–7 years). Section 313 of the Sentencing Act 2020 meant that if the appropriate term would otherwise be less than seven years, the minimum applied. The judge found significant aggravating features: repeat Class A trafficking (fourth offence), operation from custody using an illicit phone, and prior convictions; these justified a notional sentence outside the guideline range and a substantial uplift. The judge imposed 11 years before plea credit and ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the existing sentence, declining to reduce for totality. The appellate court agreed that consecutive sentencing was justified by continued offending after the earlier sentence but held that the judge erred in achieving overall totality: the judge should have stood back and assessed proportionality of the total sentence for all offending. Balancing aggravation, limited guilty-plea credit (around two per cent) and totality, the appellate court concluded the 10 years 9 months sentence was manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED IN PART

Decision: The court quashed the sentences of ten years and nine months' imprisonment imposed on counts 5 and 6 and substituted sentences of eight years and ten months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentence of five years and eight months' imprisonment imposed on 20 November 2019.

Implications: The direct effect is the reduction and substitution of the Appellant's sentences on the index counts as set out above. The court affirmed that (i) late guilty pleas attract substantially reduced credit under the guilty-plea guideline, (ii) a Newton hearing is unnecessary where the defendant accepts uploaded evidence and declines to give evidence, and (iii) totality requires the sentencer to consider the proportionality of consecutive sentences even where there are clear aggravating factors. No new precedent beyond these applications of existing guidelines and statutory provisions was created by this decision.