Khatab, R v

A defendant who admits disposing of evidence may not receive the full sentencing credit available for an early guilty plea if a material element of the offence remains in issue at trial. However, frank admissions in interview and a defence conducted without substantial dispute of the facts may justify a significant reduction from the sentence otherwise appropriate after a contested trial.

Sentencing for assisting an offender must reflect both the seriousness of concealing a weapon used in a murder and the particular circumstances of the assistance. Comparable sentencing authorities must be assessed by reference to the relative seriousness of the conduct.

The appellant was convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of assisting an offender, contrary to section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. After his brothers attacked the deceased, one brother used a stone pestle. The appellant took the pestle and disposed of it because it had blood on it.

He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence, contending that he should receive credit equivalent to an early guilty plea because he had admitted disposing of the weapon, and that the sentence was excessive when compared with other sentencing decisions.

Appeal allowed in part. The court quashed the four-year sentence and substituted a sentence of three years’ imprisonment.

1. The sentencing judge was not wrong to refuse to treat the appellant as having indicated a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity. Although the appellant admitted disposing of the pestle, the prosecution had to prove that his brother had committed murder or manslaughter and that the appellant knew or believed this when he acted. The appellant maintained that he had not appreciated the condition in which the deceased had been left, and the jury rejected that account.

2. Nevertheless, the appellant’s candid interviews, his attendance at the police station within two days, and the limited way in which he conducted his defence entitled him to a significant reduction from the sentence appropriate had he maintained a wholly contested defence.

3. The court accepted that the conduct was somewhat less serious than that considered in Attorney General’s Reference No 19 of 1993 (R v Connor Edward Downey), (1994) 15 Cr App R(S) 760. It remained a serious offence. The appellant had assisted a person who was convicted of murder by disposing of the weapon used in the fatal attack.

4. Taking those matters together, the proper sentence was three years’ imprisonment. The appeal was allowed to that extent.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of quashing the four-year sentence and substituting three years’ imprisonment: [2008] EWCA Crim 541.
• Birmingham Crown Court — convicted the appellant on 5 July 2007 of assisting an offender and sentenced him on 6 July 2007 to four years’ imprisonment.