Newman, R. v

A Goodyear indication should ordinarily be reliable and binding as far as it goes. A judge should therefore exercise particular caution before giving one, especially where a specified offence may require an extended or indeterminate sentence.

Exceptionally, a judge who recognises a plain error may revise an indication where the public interest requires an appropriate sentence and the revision is fair to the defendant. Fairness requires that the defendant can withdraw the guilty plea, so that the revision causes no prejudice beyond disappointment.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Cardiff Crown Court to wounding with intent. The judge had previously given an unqualified Goodyear indication that the maximum sentence would be three years’ detention if the appellant pleaded guilty.

At sentence, after receiving the pre-sentence report, the judge accepted that the indication had been mistaken. He said that the case might require a sentence other than a determinate one. He offered the appellant leave to withdraw the plea. The appellant chose to maintain it and received an extended sentence under section 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The sole issue was whether the judge could revise the indication after it had been acted on in good faith.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge was entitled exceptionally to revise the unqualified Goodyear indication and to impose the extended sentence.
2. Goodyear indications are of practical importance and ordinarily bind the judge as far as they go. They should be given only after careful consideration. Particular caution is required where the offence may attract an extended sentence or imprisonment for public protection. A judge may instead give a qualified indication dependent on the eventual conclusion about dangerousness and applicable only if a determinate sentence is imposed.
3. The rule is not an inflexible private right. Where a judge has plainly erred, the public interest in an appropriate sentence prevails, provided that correction is exceptional and achieved fairly. A revision is fair only if the defendant suffers no prejudice beyond disappointment.
4. Here, the judge had misclassified the offence and had not seen the pre-sentence report, which raised serious concerns about dangerousness. He candidly identified the error, gave the appellant time to consider his position, and offered leave to vacate the plea. The appellant elected to retain the plea knowing that the original indication would no longer bind the judge. No injustice resulted.
5. The six-year extended sentence, comprising four years’ detention and a two-year extension period, therefore stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed.
• Crown Court at Cardiff: On 15 January 2010, following a guilty plea to wounding with intent, the appellant received an extended sentence under section 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.