Abbott, R v

Where the prosecution does not challenge a defendant’s basis of plea, the sentencing judge may reject it without a Newton hearing only if it is manifestly implausible, plainly false or plainly untenable. If it is not, a judge who proposes to sentence on a different factual basis should give notice and an opportunity to address the issue.

Sentence for concealing criminal property requires an assessment of the nature and extent of the laundering, the offender’s knowledge of the antecedent crime, and the amount involved. Uncertainty about the precise source of the money must be resolved in the offender’s favour.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Newcastle to concealing £143,725 of criminal property and to possessing small quantities of cocaine and cannabis. He received two years and six months’ imprisonment for the concealment offence, with a concurrent six-month sentence for possessing cocaine.

His written basis of plea admitted knowledge or suspicion that the cash was the proceeds of criminal conduct, but not knowledge that it was drug-trafficking money. The sentencing judge nevertheless found that he knew it was drug money. The appellant appealed against sentence on the grounds that he had been sentenced on an incorrect basis and that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence for concealing criminal property was reduced from two years and six months’ imprisonment to two years’ imprisonment. The concurrent six-month sentence for possession of cocaine remained in force.
2. Although the prosecution had not challenged the basis of plea, the sentencing judge was not invariably bound to accept it. A judge may reject such a basis without a Newton hearing where it is manifestly implausible, plainly false or plainly untenable. Where it does not meet that description, a defendant should be given notice and an opportunity to address a proposed departure from it.
3. On the accepted facts, the court could not safely find that the appellant knew that the concealed cash represented the proceeds of drug trafficking. He had to be sentenced on the basis that he knew it represented the proceeds of some criminal conduct.
4. Applying the relevant considerations identified in Monfries, [2004] 2 Cr App R(S) 3, the court considered the single transaction, the substantial sum involved, the limited knowledge of its source, and the absence of positive financial gain because the appellant acted to repay a debt. It also took account of the possession offences, personal mitigation and the guilty plea. On the correct factual basis, the original sentence was too long and required appellate intervention.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and reduced the sentence for concealing criminal property from two years and six months to two years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Newcastle: On 11 February 2008, imposed two years and six months’ imprisonment for concealing criminal property and a concurrent six-month sentence for possession of cocaine.