Cundell, R. v

The maximum one-third reduction for a guilty plea is ordinarily available only where guilt is admitted at the earliest reasonable opportunity. That opportunity may arise before the first hearing, but earlier denials, unnecessary investigative steps, and failure to admit guilt in the Magistrates’ Court may properly reduce the allowance.

Sentencing credit must reflect the whole chronology. A plea admitted before the first Crown Court hearing, but after continued denials and an identification procedure, justified a reduction of about 25 per cent rather than either the full one-third or the approximately 10 per cent allowed at sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Leicester Crown Court to a non-domestic burglary. He also asked the court to take three further theft offences into consideration. The judge imposed two years and six months’ imprisonment and revoked an existing community order.

The appellant had initially denied the burglary despite DNA evidence and an eyewitness account. He later admitted it to the police in December 2007 and confirmed the plea at his first Crown Court appearance. He appealed against sentence as manifestly excessive, contending that the judge had wrongly treated the plea as very late and had adopted an excessive starting point.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment and substituted a sentence of two years’ imprisonment.
2. The sentencing judge had treated the guilty plea as very late and had implicitly allowed about 10 per cent credit. That assessment did not fairly reflect the chronology. Although the appellant initially denied the offence, caused an identification procedure to be undertaken, and did not admit guilt in the Magistrates’ Court, he accepted responsibility in December 2007 and confirmed his plea at his first Crown Court appearance.
3. The maximum reduction of one-third is generally reserved for a defendant who accepts guilt at the earliest reasonable opportunity. The earliest reasonable opportunity can arise before the first Magistrates’ Court hearing. On these facts, however, the appellant was not entitled to full credit. A reduction of about 25 per cent was appropriate and accorded with the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s recommendations.
4. The judge’s implicit starting point of about 33 months was not open to criticism. The offence was a non-domestic burglary and the appellant had a serious and persistent record of dishonest offending, including comparable burglaries. The excessive element of the sentence arose solely from insufficient credit for the plea.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence in [2008] EWCA Crim 1420, quashed the sentence of two years and six months, and substituted two years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Leicester: On 6 February 2008, sentenced the appellant to two years and six months’ imprisonment following a guilty plea to burglary and offences taken into consideration.
• Loughborough Magistrates’ Court: Sent the burglary case to the Crown Court after the appellant did not admit the offence.