Birt, R v

Where a defendant charged with homicide offers to plead guilty to manslaughter, the prosecution rejects the offer, the defendant pleads not guilty before the jury, and the conviction is ultimately for manslaughter, credit for the earlier offer remains a matter for sentencing discretion.

The decisive consideration is whether there was a good reason not to renew the manslaughter plea before the jury. A defendant who had a good reason will generally receive some credit. Where the defendant had no viable defence to manslaughter and a guilty plea would not undermine the defence to murder, there will generally be no credit for the rejected offer.

The appellant was tried at Liverpool Crown Court with two co-defendants following conduct which caused the victim’s death. The jury acquitted her of murder but convicted her of manslaughter. Henriques J imposed nine years’ imprisonment and gave no credit for an earlier offer to plead guilty to manslaughter which the prosecution had rejected.

Her appeal challenged only the refusal of credit. The issue was whether she had a good reason for failing to renew the manslaughter plea before the jury while contesting murder.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge was entitled to give no credit for the appellant’s earlier offer to plead guilty to manslaughter.
2. Where an offer to plead guilty to manslaughter has been rejected and the defendant is later convicted of that offence, the judge retains a discretion as to whether, and to what extent, credit should be allowed. The discretion depends on the circumstances. If there was a good reason not to renew the plea before the jury, some credit should generally be given. If there was no good reason, generally no credit should be allowed.
3. The court treated Attorney-General’s References Nos 33 and 34 of 2001 [2001] EWCA Crim 1908 and R v Bertram [2003] EWCA Crim 2026 as illustrating the former position: credit may be appropriate where the defendant has sound reasons for maintaining a not-guilty plea while the jury resolves issues also bearing on manslaughter. R v Knowles [2008] EWCA Crim 2647 illustrated that a defendant who could have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity must bear the consequences of not doing so.
4. On the facts, the appellant had no viable defence to manslaughter. Her defence to murder was that she had not foreseen really serious bodily harm. A guilty plea to manslaughter would not have undermined that defence. Accordingly, there was no good reason for her failure to renew the plea before the jury.
5. The appellant was therefore entitled to none of the possible reductions under the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s Definitive Guideline, Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea. The nine-year sentence remained undisturbed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against sentence and upheld the nine-year sentence.
• Liverpool Crown Court — the appellant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced by Henriques J to nine years’ imprisonment without credit for an earlier rejected offer to plead guilty to manslaughter.