P, R v

Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, sentencing credit for assistance remains fact-specific. The court must first assess the sentence justified by the offender’s criminality, then the extent, value and consequences of the assistance, including risks to the offender and family. Any guilty-plea reduction is separate and additional, and totality remains essential.

A section 74 review may concern a sentence imposed before the Act came into force. It is a fresh Crown Court process and is not barred by an earlier appeal against the original sentence. Assistance does not ordinarily justify immunity from punishment. A reduction exceeding three quarters will be exceptional, while the usual range remains between one half and two thirds.

These conjoined sentence appeals concerned the first consideration by the Court of Appeal of sections 71–75 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

P had provided substantial information and agreed to give evidence concerning murder investigations. Following a written agreement, he admitted further drug offences and his earlier 15-year sentence was referred back for review under section 74. The Crown Court imposed concurrent four-year sentences for the newly admitted offences and reduced the earlier sentence to five years.

Blackburn pleaded guilty to assisting an offender after a murder and to a drugs conspiracy. Under a written agreement, he gave evidence which was critical to the conviction of one murderer and assisted the continuing prosecution of another. He received a total of four years’ imprisonment.

The central issues were the operation of the new statutory framework and the proper sentencing reductions for assistance.

1. Both appeals were allowed in part. P’s five-year sentence on the section 74 review was left undisturbed, but the concurrent sentences for the offences disclosed through the debriefing process were reduced from four years to three years. Blackburn’s total sentence was reduced from four years to two and a half years by making the sentences on both counts concurrent.

2. Section 74 creates a new judicial review process for post-sentence assistance. It applies to sentences imposed before as well as after the commencement of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. It is not a further appeal against the original sentence. Accordingly, P’s earlier sentence appeal did not prevent the Crown Court from reviewing the sentence, nor prevent a later appeal from the review decision.

3. The statutory scheme formalises the former common-law practice of rewarding assistance. It requires a written agreement with a specified prosecutor and full disclosure of the offender’s criminality. Assistance outside that framework may still be recognised through the verified “text” process, although its value may be lower because it lacks the formal safeguards of sections 73 and 74.

4. The proper reduction is fact-specific. The court must assess the sentence warranted by the offender’s criminality, the quality and quantity of the assistance, its effect on the investigation or prosecution of serious crime, and the risks assumed by the offender and family. Evidence leading to, or preventing, grave offending has particular value. The reduction for assistance must be calculated before, and separately from, any reduction for a guilty plea. A mathematical approach is inappropriate; totality is fundamental.

5. Offences revealed because an offender must disclose all previous criminality will normally attract concurrent sentences. Even exceptional assistance does not normally permit an offender who has admitted serious crime to escape effective punishment. A reduction above three quarters of the otherwise appropriate sentence will be exceptional; the usual range remains between one half and two thirds.

6. The court gave non-binding guidance that exclusion of the public or reporting restrictions for a section 74 review should be used cautiously. The court should prefer practical alternatives, including anonymisation, limited reporting restrictions and an appropriately retained confidential transcript, where these protect safety while preserving public understanding of sentencing.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2007] EWCA Crim 2290, both sentence appeals were allowed in part.
• Central Criminal Court: P was sentenced on 9 March 2007 for further admitted drug offences, and his earlier 15-year sentence was reviewed under section 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
• Newcastle Crown Court: Blackburn was sentenced by Simon J on 9 March 2007 to a total of four years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas and a written assistance agreement.