Hayes, R. v

A defendant is ordinarily entitled to full credit for a guilty plea only if it is entered at the earliest opportunity. An indication at a plea and case-management hearing that the defendant will plead guilty to one count if another is not pursued is not automatically equivalent to a guilty plea.

However, the sentencing court must assess the substance of the procedural history. Where the defence has clearly and promptly indicated its acceptance of the lesser offence, and a later formal plea results from a tactical course taken after the prosecution declined that basis of plea, justice may require full credit despite the plea being entered on the trial date.

The appellant, a care assistant at a nursing home, started a petrol fire in its basement after being suspended from work. The residents were highly vulnerable and many required evacuation. Although no resident died, the fire created a grave risk to life and caused substantial damage.

At Bolton Crown Court the appellant pleaded guilty, on the first day of trial, to arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered. The prosecution did not proceed with the alternative count of arson with intent to endanger life. He received eight years’ imprisonment, including only 25 per cent credit for the plea.

On appeal by leave of the single judge, the central issue was whether the circumstances surrounding the plea justified the usual full discount.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of eight years’ imprisonment and substituted a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.

2. The offending was exceptionally grave. The appellant deliberately started a petrol fire in a nursing home occupied by vulnerable residents, creating a very high risk of multiple deaths. The original sentence properly reflected that seriousness.

3. The reduction for the guilty plea was nevertheless insufficient. Counsel had advised the appellant before the plea and case-management hearing to plead guilty to reckless arson. Counsel communicated that position to the judge and made clear that the primary facts were not disputed. The remaining issue, if the prosecution pursued the more serious count, was intent.

4. The subsequent not-guilty plea to the lesser count was a tactical course taken so that the jury could return a verdict on that count if necessary. The prosecution was not then in a position to accept the proposed basis of plea. The court accepted counsel’s account and considered that the defence had done all it reasonably could to secure an early resolution.

5. A conditional indication of a willingness to plead guilty is not generally tantamount to an actual plea. Ordinarily, full credit depends on a plea at the earliest opportunity. These facts were, however, unusual. In justice, the appellant should have received the full discount for his plea.

6. The court also stressed that effective case management requires both parties to attend prepared to identify and resolve issues promptly. The prosecution should have clarified the appellant’s admissions before incurring resources obtaining evidence on matters that were not genuinely in dispute.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — by leave of the single judge, allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted seven years’ imprisonment.
• Bolton Crown Court — on 31 March 2008, sentenced the appellant to eight years’ imprisonment after his guilty plea to arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered.