Billy Joe (Aka William) Temple, R v

An unsigned and unagreed basis of plea does not bind the sentencing court. Where a factual dispute would make no material difference to sentence, a Newton hearing is unnecessary and the judge may give the asserted facts only such weight as is appropriate.

In sentencing for blackmail, the court must give full effect to a guilty plea when first realistically open and to material personal mitigation, including a defendant’s learning disability and impaired reasoning skills. Failure to do so may make an otherwise serious sentence manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to blackmail after seeking a Goodyear indication. A robbery count was left on the file. He was sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment, with a direction that time on remand should count.

He appealed against sentence, contending that the judge had failed to give effect to his proposed basis of plea and to psychological evidence showing substantial learning disability, poor reasoning skills and a low assessed risk of reoffending with supervision. The central issues were whether a Newton hearing was required and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of four and a half years’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with three years’ imprisonment. The direction under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 remained in force.

2. The proposed basis of plea was headed “Potential Basis of Plea”, was not agreed or signed by the Crown, and contained assertions substantially within the appellant’s own knowledge. The court applied the guidance in R v Underwood [2005] 1 Cr App R 178: sentencing should proceed on an accurate factual basis, but an unagreed defence account does not bind the judge.

3. No Newton hearing was required. The disputed question was whether the appellant personally made threats or knowingly facilitated threats made by telephone. The difference would not reduce the seriousness of the offending; threats made by a person higher in the chain could make the position worse. The judge was therefore entitled to give the unsigned basis only the weight he considered appropriate.

4. Blackmail remains a serious offence, particularly where threats of grave violence instil fear to enforce an unwarranted demand. Nonetheless, the sentence was manifestly excessive because it did not fully reflect the guilty plea when first open or the appellant’s significant personal mitigation. His intellectual functioning was in the lowest one per cent of the population, his reasoning was naïve and simplistic, and he had not fully appreciated the impact of his actions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted three years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford: the appellant pleaded guilty to blackmail and was sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment. The judgment under appeal is not separately cited.