H, R v

The statutory co-operation regime under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 coexists with the non-statutory text regime. A formal statutory agreement normally justifies a greater sentencing discount because it requires full disclosure and permits review if the offender fails to comply.

The Criminal Division ordinarily reviews the sentence imposed below. It will not normally reduce a sentence for text-regime co-operation first offered after sentence. Exceptionally, it may consider a text and adjust the sentence where the offender sought to provide assistance before sentence but, through oversight or misadventure, the material was not before the sentencing judge. A defective purported statutory agreement remains non-statutory, although its good-faith execution and the discount already allowed may be assessed fairly.

Three linked sentencing matters were heard together. Each concerned assistance, or proposed assistance, to the authorities and the availability of a sentencing discount.

• H: sentenced at Southwark Crown Court to six years' imprisonment after guilty pleas relating to controlling prostitution and Class A drugs. He later relied on a text recording assistance which had not been before the sentencing judge.
• D: sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court to 40 months' imprisonment for burglary, theft, dangerous driving and associated offences. The police had not supplied to the prosecution a text concerning assistance already given before sentence.
• Yasser Chaudhury: sentenced at Wolverhampton Crown Court to four years' imprisonment for robbery and dangerous driving. The sentencing judge had treated a signed document as a statutory co-operation agreement, but it was not properly authorised or enforceable.

The central issue was when the court could allow or revisit a discount for assistance under the statutory or text regimes.

1. H's and D's appeals were allowed; Yasser Chaudhury's application for leave to appeal was refused. The court reaffirmed that the formal statutory scheme in sections 71 to 75 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 did not abolish the text regime. The statutory scheme is more formal and provides greater protection for the public interest. Save in unusual circumstances, text-regime assistance will therefore attract a smaller discount.

2. Following R v A and B [1999] 1 Cr App R(S) 52, the Criminal Division is a court of review. A defendant who denied guilt and did not initiate text-regime co-operation before sentence will normally be unable to secure an appellate reduction merely by co-operating after conviction. The rule permits flexibility where an offender sought to give assistance before sentence but the relevant text or information was absent through oversight or misadventure. The court may then consider material which should have been before the Crown Court.

3. H had repeatedly offered information before sentence, but police failures and resource difficulties meant that no text was prepared and the sentencing judge was unaware of his willingness to assist. That was an exceptional case. The court considered the subsequently supplied text and reduced the total sentence from six years to five years' imprisonment.

4. D had given the assistance before sentence, but the text which should have been provided to the prosecuting authority and sentencing judge was not prepared. Applying the same flexible approach, the court reduced his total sentence from 40 months to 30 months' imprisonment.

5. Chaudhury's document was not a properly authorised or enforceable agreement under section 73. It could not become a statutory agreement merely because he had signed it in good faith and the judge had treated it as such. Nevertheless, it was fair to assess the matter as the judge had done. The judge had allowed an adequate discount for the co-operation offered, and the four-year sentence was not open to criticism. Leave to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): H's renewed application was granted and his sentence reduced from six years to five years. D's appeal was allowed and his sentence reduced from 40 months to 30 months. Yasser Chaudhury's application for leave to appeal against a four-year sentence was refused.
2. Crown Court at Southwark: H was sentenced on 14 September 2007 to a total of six years' imprisonment.
3. Crown Court at Sheffield: D was sentenced on 5 June 2009, following committal from Sheffield Magistrates' Court and guilty pleas on indictment, to a total of 40 months' imprisonment.
4. Crown Court at Wolverhampton: Yasser Chaudhury was sentenced on 12 June 2009 to four years' imprisonment.