Taylor, R. v

Where a defendant advances a basis of plea which the sentencing judge cannot accept, the judge may reject it without a further evidential hearing if it is plainly untenable in light of material properly available on sentence. The judge should nevertheless make clear why the account is rejected, receive full submissions where necessary, and give a reasoned ruling identifying the factual basis for mitigation. Sentences imposed for a common criminal enterprise must also reflect material differences in the offenders’ respective roles.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Luton to transferring criminal property and to two conspiracies to supply cannabis. He received a total sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

He appealed against sentence. His basis of plea portrayed him as a limited courier, paid small sums for occasional collections, deliveries and drug transactions. The sentencing judge rejected that basis without a Newton hearing, having presided over the trial of co-defendants, and treated the appellant and Dooner as equal leaders of the enterprise.

The appeal concerned whether the judge had lawfully refused the appellant an opportunity to support his basis of plea, and whether the sentence sufficiently distinguished his role from Dooner’s.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court reduced the total sentence from five years to four years’ imprisonment.

2. A sentencing judge who has heard the trial of co-defendants may, in an appropriate case, reject a basis of plea without hearing further evidence. This basis of plea could potentially have been rejected in that way. The appellant had previously given untruthful accounts, the telephone evidence substantially undermined his account, and even his own version described significant involvement in the conspiracies.

3. However, the judge had not explained why the trial evidence made the basis of plea untenable. The judge’s reliance on Patrick Smith (1988) 10 Cr App R(S) 271 omitted the qualification that adverse material may be untested and that the defendant may not have had an opportunity to advance his own account. Where the judge adopts a robust approach to a request to give evidence, the parties should have full opportunity to make submissions and the judge should give a reasoned ruling so that the basis for mitigation is clear.

4. The Crown accepted that the appellant had played a lesser role than Dooner, but the judge had treated both as equal leaders. A sentencing distinction was required. The concurrent sentences on counts 2 and 3 were reduced from five to four years. The concurrent sentence of three years and four months on count 1 remained undisturbed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted concurrent terms of four years on counts 2 and 3.

• Crown Court at Luton: On 13 October 2005 imposed a total sentence of five years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to transferring criminal property and conspiracies to supply cannabis.