Forbes, R. v

A guilty plea ordinarily attracts a reduction in sentence. The fact that an offender was caught red-handed, or had little prospect of acquittal, does not alone justify withholding that reduction. A maximum sentence may exceptionally remain appropriate, but the court must consider all the circumstances and the strong policy favouring credit for an early plea.

Concurrent terms are generally appropriate for offences arising from the same incident, but the rule is not inflexible. Consecutive terms may be imposed where the offences are sufficiently distinct and the circumstances warrant separate punishment.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Coventry Crown Court to aggravated vehicle taking and driving while disqualified. The offences involved prolonged and exceptionally dangerous driving in a stolen car while he was disqualified and on licence for earlier similar offending.

The judge ordered his return to detention for the unexpired part of the earlier sentence and imposed consecutive maximum terms of two years and six months for the new offences. The appellant challenged the refusal of any credit for his guilty pleas and the imposition of consecutive terms.

1. Appeal allowed as to sentence. The court quashed the two sentences for the new offences and substituted concurrent? No: it substituted consecutive terms of 18 months for aggravated vehicle taking and four months for driving while disqualified, a total of 22 months. Those terms remained consecutive to the unexpired 116 days’ detention for the earlier offences. The driving disqualification order was unchanged.

2. The sentencing judge had been entitled to regard the offending as exceptionally grave. The appellant’s driving created an obvious risk of fatal harm, and his record materially aggravated the position. Nevertheless, he erred in denying all credit for the early guilty pleas merely because the pleas were practically inevitable.

3. R v March [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 448 recognised that a maximum sentence may exceptionally follow a guilty plea. However, the court held that its discussion of an inevitable plea required caution in light of the Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance. Being caught red-handed does not, by itself, justify withholding or reducing the normal sliding-scale credit. This case was not so exceptional as to justify depriving the appellant of all credit.

4. The judge did not err by ordering the new terms to be consecutive. Although concurrent terms are generally imposed for offences arising from the same incident, aggravated vehicle taking and driving while disqualified were sufficiently distinct offences. Following R v Dillon (1983) 5 Cr. App. R. (S) 439, consecutive sentences were permissible where the circumstances demanded them.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence. The terms for the new offences were reduced to 18 months and four months, to run consecutively.
• Crown Court at Coventry: On 10 November 2004, as varied on 26 November 2004, imposed consecutive maximum terms of two years for aggravated vehicle taking and six months for driving while disqualified, consecutive to 116 days’ return to detention.