T, R. v

A guilty plea ordinarily attracts a reduction in sentence. The principle is general rather than absolute, and a maximum sentence may exceptionally be imposed despite the plea. Seriousness is a relevant consideration but does not automatically justify withholding all credit.

For a young offender subject to a statutory maximum detention and training order, the fact that an adult would merit a longer sentence cannot alone remove credit for a guilty plea. The public-protection exception is narrow. It requires a genuine necessity for the maximum term, not merely a short additional period of protection from an offender who presents a serious risk.

The appellant, aged 16, pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Cardiff to unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm after an unprovoked single punch caused catastrophic head injuries. The prosecution did not pursue the more serious count because the evidence established a single punch.

On 8 June 2011, the judge imposed the maximum 24-month detention and training order. The appellant had relevant convictions for violence and robbery, committed the offence shortly after release on licence, and was assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm if he reoffended.

He appealed by leave against sentence. The central issue was whether the judge could withhold all reduction for a guilty plea because the offence was exceptionally serious and an adult offender would have received a substantially longer custodial sentence.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the 24-month detention and training order and substituted an 18-month order.
2. A guilty plea normally attracts some reduction. The court followed the principles in R v March [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 98. They permit a maximum sentence despite a plea only in limited and non-exhaustive exceptional circumstances. The seriousness of an offence must be assessed with all the circumstances. Even an exceptionally serious offence does not automatically justify withholding all credit.
3. The definitive guideline on reduction for guilty pleas did not prevent a court from withholding credit in a proper case. Its express reference to cases in which long-term detention under section 91 was available did not make that the only possible exception. However, Parliament had fixed the applicable maximum for this under-18 offender. The judge could not refuse credit merely because an adult convicted of the same offence would have received substantially more than two years' custody.
4. The only potentially relevant exception was necessity to impose the maximum for public protection. Although the appellant presented clear signs of dangerousness, that exception had a restricted meaning. The court applied the guidance in R v Sharkey and Daniels [1995] 16 Cr App R (S) 257, which associated it with a personality disorder and a risk of repeated offending requiring the maximum term for as long as possible. The additional six months' protection available here was insufficient to displace the compelling legal and public-interest reasons for recognising the guilty plea.
5. There was no justification for a reduction greater than the next available statutory term. The appropriate substituted sentence was therefore an 18-month detention and training order.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted an 18-month detention and training order: [2011] EWCA Crim 2345.
• Crown Court at Cardiff: On 8 June 2011, imposed a 24-month detention and training order following the appellant's guilty plea to unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm. No lower-court citation was stated.