Bevens, R v

A sentence reduction for assistance given under a statutory agreement is a fact-specific assessment. Percentage ranges described in earlier decisions do not create a fixed entitlement. The court must assess the value of the assistance to the administration of justice against all relevant circumstances, including the offender’s criminality, the scope of the cooperation and the risks undertaken.

The reduction for assistance is assessed before any separate reduction for a guilty plea. The exceptional seriousness and statutory sentencing framework for murder may materially affect the appropriate reduction in a minimum term.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Newcastle Crown Court to murder and conspiracy to supply controlled drugs. He received life imprisonment for murder with a 26-year minimum term, together with a concurrent seven-year sentence for the drugs conspiracy.

After entering an agreement under section 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, he gave evidence which assisted the successful prosecution of a corrupt police officer. Simon J reviewed the sentence and reduced the minimum term by five years, with a separate one-year reduction for the guilty plea.

The appellant appealed, contending that the reduction should have been comparable to that afforded to a different offender who had given extensive assistance after the same murder. The central issue was whether the five-year reduction adequately reflected the appellant’s assistance.

1. Appeal dismissed. The five-year reduction in the minimum term was sufficient.

2. The assessment of a reduction for assistance under section 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 is fact-specific. The guidance in R v P : R v Blackburn [2008] 2 CAR (S) 5, concerning usual and exceptional levels of reduction, did not prescribe a mathematical result. Its observation about reductions exceeding three quarters addressed the exceptional possibility of complete immunity and had to be read with the wider sentencing approach.

3. The proper method was first to assess the appropriate reduction for the assistance against all relevant considerations, and then to make any further reduction for a guilty plea. The seriousness of a planned gangland murder, including its treatment under Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, was relevant to the assessment. Simon J was entitled to take account of the special features of murder and of the limited approach to guilty-plea reductions.

4. The appellant’s assistance was valuable because it contributed to the conviction of a corrupt police officer. It was nevertheless deliberately limited. He had refused to assist in prosecuting Foster, the man involved with him in the murder, and his evidence did not expose or disrupt the already-ended corrupt relationship. His cooperation was therefore far from full and involved materially less risk and value than Blackburn’s assistance. The appropriate reduction was the value to justice of the assistance actually performed under the agreement. A five-year reduction in the minimum term was adequate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal from Simon J’s sentence review was dismissed: [2009] EWCA Crim 2554.
• Crown Court at Newcastle. The appellant pleaded guilty to murder and conspiracy to supply controlled drugs in March 2007. A life sentence with a 26-year minimum term was imposed. Following an agreement under section 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, Simon J reviewed the sentence in July 2009 and reduced the minimum term by five years.