Vaughan, R v

Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 240, a defendant’s continued denial or non-admission of guilt while remanded in custody cannot, by itself, justify refusing credit for that remand period. The ordinary means of reflecting a late guilty plea is to withhold or reduce the sentencing discount for the plea. Denying remand credit for the same reason would take the matter into account twice and is wrong in principle.

The appellant was sentenced in the Crown Court at Exeter for burglary, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and inflicting grievous bodily harm. He had been remanded in custody for 207 days before sentence. He pleaded guilty after 172 days, and the Recorder gave a 25 per cent reduction for those pleas.

The Recorder directed under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that only the 35 days after the guilty pleas should count towards sentence. The appellant appealed against that direction, with permission of the single judge. The central issue was whether the earlier remand period could be withheld solely because he had not then admitted guilt.

1. The appeal was allowed to the limited extent of the section 240 direction. The court quashed the direction that only 35 days of remand custody should count and substituted a direction that the full 207 days should count towards sentence.

2. Section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 required the court, subject to immaterial qualifications, to direct that custody on remand in connection with the sentenced offences count as time served. The exception applied only where it was just in all the circumstances to withhold some or all credit.

3. A defendant’s denial or non-admission of guilt during remand could not alone be a sufficient circumstance for withholding that credit. A defendant who maintains a denial until conviction will ordinarily receive full credit for custody awaiting trial.

4. The correct sentencing response to a failure to plead guilty at the first reasonable opportunity is no plea discount after conviction, or a reduced discount following a late guilty plea. The appellant had already received reduced credit for his late pleas. Refusing remand credit for the same period therefore amounted to impermissible double counting.

5. Section 240(6) required reasons to be stated in open court where full credit was not given. Although the Recorder had not expressly identified the relevant circumstances, the court inferred that the withheld credit was based on the late admission of guilt. That basis was wrong in principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2008] EWCA Crim 1613, the court allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing and replacing the section 240 direction.
• Crown Court at Exeter — the Recorder imposed concurrent extended sentences and directed that only 35 of 207 days spent on remand should count towards sentence.