McCarthy, R. v

In a case subject to a statutory minimum sentence, the restriction in section 144(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 prevents a guilty-plea reduction which takes the sentence below 80 per cent of the statutory minimum. It does not restrict the overall discount to 20 per cent where the proper sentence before discount exceeds that minimum. The court may therefore allow the full appropriate discount for an early guilty plea, provided that the resulting sentence remains above the statutory floor.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to burglary at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook. His previous convictions engaged the three-year required minimum sentence under section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

The sentencing judge identified a four-year sentence after trial but limited the guilty-plea discount to 20 per cent, imposing three years and two months’ imprisonment. The sole issue on the appeal against sentence was whether that statutory restriction prevented a greater discount although the resulting sentence would remain above 80 per cent of the required minimum.

1. The appeal against sentence was allowed to a limited extent. The sentence of three years and two months’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with two years and eight months’ imprisonment.

2. Section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 required a minimum sentence of three years’ imprisonment. Section 144(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 permitted a reduction for a guilty plea, but preserved a floor of 80 per cent of that required minimum.

3. The sentencing judge had incorrectly treated the statutory restriction as limiting the available discount for an early guilty plea to 20 per cent in all circumstances. R v Gray [2007] 2 Cr App R(S) 78 established that, where the sentence properly called for exceeds the minimum term, a greater discount may be applied if the resulting term does not fall below the statutory floor.

4. The court agreed with that approach. Since the judge would otherwise have allowed the full one-third discount from the four-year notional sentence, the proper substituted sentence was two years and eight months. The 43 days spent in custody on remand continued to count towards that sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By leave of the single judge, allowed the appeal against sentence to a limited extent and substituted a sentence of two years and eight months’ imprisonment: [2011] EWCA Crim 3107 .

• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: Following a guilty plea to burglary, imposed three years and two months’ imprisonment.