Gray, R. v

Where a statutory minimum sentence applies to repeat dwelling-house burglary, Criminal Justice Act 2005, section 144(2), permits a guilty-plea reduction from the appropriate overall custodial term. The only statutory limit is that the final sentence must not be below 80 per cent of the applicable minimum term under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

A court should not apply different discounts to the minimum component and to the balance of the notional sentence. It may apply the appropriate plea discount to the whole starting sentence, provided that the resulting sentence remains above the statutory 80 per cent threshold.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Brighton Crown Court to burglary and attempted burglary, and asked for 13 further burglaries to be taken into consideration. The burglary was committed in an occupied house while the occupants were asleep.

The sentencing judge treated five years’ imprisonment as the appropriate sentence after a contested trial. As the repeat-burglary provisions of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 applied, the judge considered that a minimum term of three years constrained the available guilty-plea reduction. He imposed three years and 229 days’ imprisonment for burglary, with two years concurrently for attempted burglary.

The appeal concerned whether the guilty-plea discount could be applied to the whole five-year starting point, subject only to the statutory minimum floor.

1. Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed. The sentence for burglary was quashed and replaced by one of 40 months’ imprisonment. The concurrent sentence for attempted burglary was unaffected.

2. Section 111(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 required a minimum term of three years unless particular circumstances made that unjust. Section 144(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2005 nevertheless authorised a sentence below that minimum after a guilty plea, provided it was not less than 80 per cent of the specified minimum.

3. The 80 per cent restriction set a floor for the final sentence. It did not require the sentencing judge to confine the statutory 20 per cent reduction to the first three years and then apply a different reduction to the remainder of the notional sentence.

4. The judge had found that a 30 per cent reduction was appropriate from the five-year starting point. Applying that reduction to the whole term produced 40 months, which exceeded 80 per cent of three years. The statutory regime therefore did not prevent that sentence.

5. The court considered that this construction was consistent with the approach in Hickson [2001] EWCA Crim. 1595, although the precise point had not directly arisen there.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal against sentence, substituting 40 months’ imprisonment for burglary.
• Brighton Crown Court — imposed three years and 229 days’ imprisonment for burglary, with two years’ imprisonment concurrently for attempted burglary.