Henry-Godwin, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at The City by Judge Potter on 7 July 2025 of three offences of supplying or possessing with intent to supply class A drugs. The total sentence imposed was 5 years 9 months' imprisonment. No separate penalty was imposed for three further offences involving class B drugs and possession of criminal property. The appeal, with leave, challenges only the level of guilty-plea credit awarded.

Operation A investigated the supply of crack cocaine, cocaine, heroin and cannabis in The City relating to a lucrative drugs line known as Drug Line A (phone numbers [Redacted Number] and [Redacted Number]). Cash and substantial quantities of class A and B drugs were seized from properties associated with the Appellant and co-defendants Co-defendant A, Co-defendant B and Co-defendant C. On 23 January 2025 police attended a flat at [Number] Main Street where the Appellant was seen attempting to flush items down a toilet; significant quantities and types of class A drugs were recovered from the flat. The Appellant was committed for trial. The Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) was ultimately listed for 10 March 2025 when the Appellant pleaded guilty. Sentence was adjourned to 7 July 2025 when Judge Potter imposed the total term above.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant should have been afforded a one-third reduction in sentence for guilty pleas (the full reduction under the Sentencing Council guideline) rather than the 25% reduction applied by the sentencing judge.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant submitted that 10 March 2025 was the first real opportunity to indicate guilty pleas because before that date the prosecution papers and case summary did not reference him or describe his alleged criminality.
• Reliance was placed on the Sentencing Council Overarching Guidelines (Reduction in Sentence for Guilty Plea), paragraphs D1 and F1, arguing that Exception F1 applies: particular circumstances significantly reduced the Appellant's ability to understand what was alleged or made it unreasonable to expect an earlier plea, entitling him to a one-third reduction.
• The vacation of an earlier PTPH and the timing of the indictment and case conference were advanced to show the plea could not reasonably have been entered earlier.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted the sentencing judge's assessment. It analysed whether Exception F1 applied by asking if there were particular circumstances that significantly reduced the Appellant's ability to understand the allegations or made it unreasonable to expect an earlier plea. The court concluded the Appellant knew at the first magistrates' hearing that he faced charges of being concerned in the supply of class A drugs and possession with intent to supply and knew of his involvement. Therefore he had sufficient knowledge to indicate an unequivocal guilty plea at that stage. The court applied the distinction in Plaku between defendants who genuinely need further information or advice and those who delay pleas to gauge the prosecution case; fairness to those who plead early requires narrow application of Exception F1. On that basis the court found no error in reducing the guilty-plea discount from one-third to 25%.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The 5 years 9 months' imprisonment imposed by Judge Potter remains in force; the Appellant retains a 25% reduction for guilty pleas. The opinion does not identify or establish a new precedent beyond applying existing guideline principles as explained in Plaku.