Tahir & Anor, R. v

An early guilty plea does not invariably attract the full usual credit where a Newton hearing is required. The sentencing judge may reduce credit where the defendant’s admitted basis materially understates the offending, even if the prosecution’s original assessment was also excessive. The assessment is one of overall fairness and will not be disturbed if it falls within a reasonable range.

In a conspiracy, a record made by one conspirator may be admissible against another where there is independent evidence of their participation and a realistic or reasonable inference that the record was made in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The appellants pleaded guilty at Middlesex Guildhall Crown Court to conspiracy to supply cannabis. After a Newton hearing, the judge found that the quantity for which they were responsible substantially exceeded that admitted in their bases of plea. He reduced their guilty-plea credit and imposed sentences of six years and nine months’ imprisonment on Tahir and six years’ imprisonment on Adams.

Tahir appealed with leave. Adams was given an extension of time to renew his application. Their common challenge concerned the reduction in guilty-plea credit. Tahir also contended that Adams’s notebook was inadmissible against him and that he should not have been treated as equally responsible. Adams additionally relied on personal mitigation.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The judge was entitled to reduce the appellants’ credit for their early guilty pleas from the usual one-third to 20 per cent. The Newton hearing established a quantity substantially below that originally alleged by the prosecution, but also substantially above that which the appellants admitted. They therefore obtained some, but not all, of the benefit they sought. The reduction was within the range of a reasonable sentencing assessment.

2. Tahir’s basis of plea expressly linked his admitted involvement to transactions recorded in Adams’s notebook. There was independent evidence that both men participated in the same drug-supply conspiracy. The judge was entitled to infer that the notebook was prepared in furtherance of that conspiracy.

3. The notebook was consequently admissible against Tahir. Applying R v Devonport and Pirano [1996] 1 Cr App R 221, the court held that it was compelling evidence of how the conspiracy operated. Its references to what “we” owed and paid, together with the absence of any division between the appellants’ transactions, supported the finding that Tahir was involved to the same extent as Adams.

4. The judge had plainly considered Adams’s personal circumstances. They provided no basis for appellate intervention.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed both sentence appeals. Tahir had leave to appeal; Adams received an extension of time to renew his application and was granted leave.

• Crown Court at Middlesex Guildhall: following guilty pleas to conspiracy to supply cannabis and a Newton hearing, sentenced Tahir to six years and nine months’ imprisonment and Adams to six years’ imprisonment.