Gisborne, R v

A defendant who pleads guilty at the first available opportunity is ordinarily entitled to the full one-third reduction from the sentence that would have followed a trial. Under paragraph 5.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines Council guideline, the strength of the prosecution case does not, by itself, justify reducing that discount.

A deterrent sentence may nevertheless be warranted for deliberate and repeated intimidation and property damage directed at law-abiding persons in pursuit of a campaign. Personal beliefs do not mitigate conduct which deliberately undermines others’ security and ability to live lawfully.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Peterborough Crown Court to conspiracy to damage property. She had participated in planned attacks on vehicles at the homes of persons connected, directly or indirectly, with animal experimentation. The attacks caused almost £40,000 damage and serious distress to the victims.

She received six and a half years’ imprisonment, a two-year anti-social behaviour order taking effect on release, and a three-year driving disqualification. On appeal against sentence, the central issue was whether the judge had given sufficient credit for her prompt guilty plea.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court quashed the sentence of six and a half years’ imprisonment and substituted five and a half years.
2. The appellant had pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. Although the prosecution evidence was overwhelming, paragraph 5.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines Council guideline issued in December 2004 provided that the strength of the prosecution case should not itself reduce the discount otherwise appropriate for a prompt plea. She was therefore entitled to a one-third reduction from the sentence appropriate after trial.
3. A deterrent custodial sentence remained entirely appropriate. The offending was planned and repeated, caused substantial financial damage, and seriously affected the victims’ security and well-being. The appellant’s beliefs did not lessen the gravity of deliberately inflicting that harm, and her previous related offending was material.
4. The anti-social behaviour order was properly made on appropriate terms. The driving disqualification was also a legitimate sentencing tool: its entry on the appellant’s driving record could affect her future ability to hire vehicles. Its three-year duration was not open to effective challenge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence in part and substituted five and a half years’ imprisonment.
• Peterborough Crown Court: Following a guilty plea to conspiracy to damage property, imposed six and a half years’ imprisonment, a two-year anti-social behaviour order effective on release, and a three-year driving disqualification.