D, R. v

A reduction of sentence following assistance under a written agreement is an appropriate reward for the assistance’s value to the administration of justice. It is not a contractual entitlement arising merely because the defendant has performed the agreement. The assessment remains fact-specific. It may reflect the agreement’s scope, the value of information or evidence, the risks created by co-operation, and delay attributable to the defendant. The absence of admissible evidence or of arrests does not necessarily reduce the value of intelligence. On a review under section 74(6) of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, the court should calculate the assistance reduction from the pre-plea notional sentence, then apply the guilty-plea reduction.

The applicant had been sentenced for large-scale importation of class A drugs. He had absconded, pleaded guilty only shortly before trial, and received a discount of just under 20 per cent for his plea. Earlier applications for leave to appeal against that sentence had failed.

After sentence, the applicant entered a written agreement under section 73 of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. He provided accurate intelligence about organised drug importation and money laundering, leading to inquiries and disruption, but he neither made full admissions of his own criminality nor agreed to give evidence against others.

On a review under section 74, the sentencing judge allowed a further reduction of about 25 per cent. The applicant sought leave to appeal, contending that he had earned the normal reduction identified in R v P; R v Blackburn [2008] 2 Cr App R(S) 5.

1. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. No error in the overall result of the sentence review, and no basis for appellate intervention, had been shown.

2. Under section 74(6) of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, the reduction must reflect the value to the administration of justice of the defendant’s performance of the statutory agreement. Compliance with an agreement does not, by itself, entitle a defendant to a reduction of one half to two thirds of the otherwise appropriate sentence.

3. The guidance in R v P; R v Blackburn [2008] 2 Cr App R(S) 5 was fact-specific and concerned defendants who had entered more comprehensive agreements. This applicant gave valuable and accurate intelligence, but his agreement was limited. He did not disclose all his own criminality, agree to be prosecuted for it, or agree to give evidence. Those features reduced the value of his assistance when compared with assistance involving evidence against former associates and the consequent greater risks.

4. The absence of evidence capable of use at trial, or the fact that no arrest has followed, does not necessarily make information less valuable. Intelligence may be of exceptional value even though it cannot be converted into admissible evidence. Conversely, delay for which the defendant is responsible may diminish its value and justify a proportionate reduction in the allowance.

5. For a review, the judge should start again with the notional sentence reflecting criminality and mitigation before any guilty-plea allowance. The judge should first reduce that figure for assistance, and then apply the appropriate guilty-plea reduction. Although the judge had not used that sequence, the resulting 25 per cent allowance was not shown to be wrong.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The applicant’s challenge to the result of the sentence review under section 74 of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 was dismissed.

• Sentencing judge: After the applicant entered a section 73 written agreement and provided intelligence, the judge reviewed the original sentence and allowed a further reduction of about 25 per cent.

• Earlier Court of Appeal proceedings: The applicant’s original application for leave to appeal against sentence, and its renewal to the Full Court, had been refused.