Hollywood, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 6, 22 and 27 January 2025 police executed searches at premises and a storage unit where the Appellant was present. Items recovered included tablets and powder later confirmed to be the synthetic opioid Nitazene, drug‑production paraphernalia and pill presses. Quantities recovered across the incidents included 70 tablets and 21.3g loose powder (6 January), 933 tablets (22 January) and 2.86kg powder (27 January). The Appellant was arrested, interviewed and ultimately indicted.

On 3 April 2025 the final indictment was put to the Appellant, who pleaded guilty to three counts of possession of a Class A drug (Nitazene) with intent to supply (dated respectively 6, 22 and 27 January 2025). On 17 June 2025 the Crown Court sentenced the Appellant to an aggregate term of 11 years' imprisonment. With leave of a single judge the Appellant appealed, contending the sentence was manifestly excessive and that insufficient credit was given for his guilty pleas.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the overall sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in characterising the Appellant's role (leading role v. significant role).
3. Whether the judge correctly categorised the harm and applied the sentencing guideline starting point.
4. Whether the judge was entitled to a notional pre‑credit sentence of 16 years (and the steps raising it from the guideline starting point) having regard to concurrent offending and aggravating factors.
5. Whether the Appellant should have been given full one‑third credit for guilty pleas, or only 25% credit, having regard to the first reasonable opportunity to plead to Nitazene charges.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The overall sentence was manifestly excessive.
• The Appellant should have received full one‑third credit for guilty pleas because the first reasonable opportunity to plead to the Nitazene charges (including the most serious offence) only arose on 3 April 2025; there was no Nitazene charge before the Magistrates' Court on 24 January 2025.
• The notional pre‑credit sentence (as increased) was disproportionate compared with comparable large‑quantity cases involving other drugs.

Crown's Arguments

• The sentencing judge correctly assessed the Appellant's role as leading and was entitled to treat the harm as between guideline categories and to increase the starting point accordingly.
• Administrative or electronic difficulties in charging/coding did not mean the Appellant lacked an earlier opportunity to plead; accordingly only 25% credit was appropriate under the rule that credit is given at the first available opportunity.
• The aggravating factors (previous convictions and offending while on bail) justified the higher notional pre‑credit sentence and the overall sentence imposed.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the facts (quantities, paraphernalia, phone material and storage unit contents) and the sentencing judge's findings on role, culpability and harm (taking the 2.86kg offence as lead). The Court of Appeal found no error in the judge's assessment of role or in placing harm effectively at the higher guideline category with an increased starting point, nor in taking account of aggravating factors including previous convictions and offending while on bail.

The court analysed the sentencing arithmetic. It noted the judge had identified an appropriate overall, pre‑credit sentence (effectively 14 years and eight months) after allowing a one‑year reduction for totality, then applied 25% credit to reach an 11‑year net term. The court accepted that the judge was entitled to aggregate and adjust for aggravating factors and totality at the sentencing stage.

On the issue of plea credit the court concluded that, notwithstanding administrative or computer coding difficulties, there was no Nitazene charge before the Magistrates' Court on 24 January 2025 and that the first reasonable opportunity to plead to the Nitazene charges (including the lead offence) was 3 April 2025. Accordingly the Appellant was entitled to full one‑third credit for the guilty pleas. The court recalculated the sentences applying full one‑third credit to the effective pre‑credit sentence and to the concurrent counts, rounded down where necessary, and set out the adjusted concurrent terms and the resulting overall sentence.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED

Holding: The court allowed the appeal to the extent that the Appellant should have been given full one‑third credit for guilty pleas entered on 3 April 2025. Applying full credit to the effective pre‑credit sentence previously identified (14 years and eight months) produced adjusted concurrent sentences and an overall sentence of nine years and nine months' imprisonment.

Implications: The direct effect is a reduction of the Appellant's sentence from 11 years to an overall term of nine years and nine months' imprisonment, with adjusted concurrent terms on the other counts as specified by the court. The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond the application of existing principles governing the timing of the first reasonable opportunity to plead and the appropriate credit for guilty pleas.