Goodyear, R v

A defendant may, through counsel and on the defendant’s request, seek an advance indication of the maximum sentence that would be imposed on an immediate guilty plea. The indication does not amount to improper judicial pressure if the plea remains voluntary and the judge has not initiated an unsolicited indication.

The indication will normally be confined to the maximum sentence on a guilty plea at that stage. The judge may refuse or defer it, but an indication given is binding on that judge and a later sentencing judge if the defendant then pleads guilty. The practice in R v Turner [1970] 2 QB 321 was modified accordingly, subject to safeguards against plea bargaining and pressure.

The appellant and three co-defendants pleaded guilty to corruption arising from benefits provided to a council employee responsible for allocating and supervising grant-aided building work. Before the pleas, the sentencing judge indicated that the appellant’s case was not a custody case. On sentence, however, he imposed six months’ imprisonment suspended for two years and a fine of £1,000, explaining that he had meant that immediate custody would not be required.

The appellant appealed against the suspended sentence. A five-judge Court of Appeal was convened to decide both whether the judge was bound by the indication and whether the restrictive practice governing advance sentence indications should continue in the light of R v Turner [1970] 2 QB 321.

1. Appeal allowed. The suspended sentence of imprisonment was quashed. The court declined to increase the fine or substitute a community punishment order.
2. The judge should have honoured his earlier indication that this was not a custody case. On the particular facts, a non-custodial sentence for corruption could exceptionally have been justified: the appellant gained no additional work or competitive advantage, the conduct was historic, and he had pleaded guilty. The court did not purport to lay down a sentencing guideline for corruption.
3. The court modified the practice in R v Turner [1970] 2 QB 321. A defendant who deliberately seeks an indication through counsel may be told the judge’s current view of the maximum sentence on an immediate guilty plea. That process is consistent with a voluntary plea and does not itself create improper judicial pressure. A judge must not give an unsolicited indication, although the judge may cautiously remind counsel in open court that the defendant may seek one.
4. An indication should normally state only the maximum sentence on a guilty plea at the stage of the request. The judge should not indicate the likely sentence following conviction after trial. The judge has an unfettered discretion to refuse or defer an indication, including where pressure, vulnerability, incomplete information, unresolved co-defendant issues, or tactical use of the procedure makes an indication inappropriate.
5. The request must be authorised in writing by the defendant. There must be no uncertainty about the plea or its factual basis, and no plea bargaining. A binding indication applies to the judge who gave it and to a later judge responsible for sentence. It ceases if, after a reasonable opportunity to consider it, the defendant does not plead guilty.
6. The process should normally occur in open court with a full recording, the defendant present, and both sides represented. The prosecution must draw attention to mandatory requirements and relevant sentencing guidance, but must not appear to approve the indication. The Attorney General’s power to refer an unduly lenient sentence remains unaffected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Allowed the appeal against sentence and quashed the suspended sentence of imprisonment: [2005] EWCA Crim 888.
• Crown Court at Doncaster — Following guilty pleas to corruption, imposed six months’ imprisonment suspended for two years and a fine of £1,000.