Reid, R v

A guilty plea entered on rearraignment, six weeks after a not-guilty plea and after a trial date has been fixed, is not a plea at the first reasonable opportunity. It need not receive the full one-third sentencing discount. In assessing whether a specified minimum term is manifestly excessive, the court must assess the corresponding determinate sentence using the discount properly available. A planned, sustained and life-threatening wounding of a vulnerable victim can justify a very lengthy sentence. A seven-year specified minimum term was not manifestly excessive where it reflected a 14-year notional determinate sentence with proper allowance for a late guilty plea.

The appellant pleaded guilty on rearraignment at Nottingham Crown Court to wounding with intent under section 18, having initially pleaded not guilty to that count and to attempted murder. The Crown later accepted the plea.

Butterfield J imposed imprisonment for public protection under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 225, with a seven-year specified minimum term less time spent on remand. The appellant did not challenge the finding that he was dangerous or the indeterminate sentence. By leave of the single judge, he appealed only on the ground that the minimum term was excessive.

The central issue was whether the seven-year minimum term, representing a 14-year notional determinate sentence, gave proper credit for the late guilty plea and was manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offence.

Appeal dismissed

1. The court held that the single judge had wrongly treated the seven-year minimum term as equivalent to a 21-year sentence after trial. The appellant had not pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity. He pleaded on rearraignment, six weeks after entering not-guilty pleas and after the trial date had been fixed. He was therefore not entitled to the full one-third discount.

2. The offence was exceptionally grave. It involved a planned attack at the victim’s home, the acquisition and use of a knife, balaclavas and gloves, repeated chest wounds, and a vulnerable victim who was effectively unarmed. The injuries were life-threatening and the victim survived only because of prompt intervention. A determinate sentence after trial of about 16 or 17 years could properly have been anticipated.

3. The notional determinate sentence of 14 years made adequate allowance for the late plea. The resulting seven-year specified minimum term was not manifestly excessive. The finding of dangerousness and the sentence of imprisonment for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were unchallenged. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against the specified minimum term.
• Nottingham Crown Court — on 6 April 2009, Butterfield J imposed imprisonment for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with a specified minimum term of seven years less 286 days spent on remand.