Chaytors, R. v

The normal reduction for a guilty plea entered at the first reasonable opportunity is one third. What amounts to that opportunity depends on the facts, including when the defendant and legal adviser had sufficient information and whether an earlier indication of willingness to plead could reasonably have been expected.

Where the prosecution accepts that the plea was entered at the first reasonable opportunity and the sentencing judge expressly proceeds on that basis, a lesser discount requires a proper basis. A plea at a plea and case management hearing will increasingly be unlikely to be the first reasonable opportunity where an early guilty plea scheme operates.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Maidstone Crown Court to three robberies involving violence, theft and the use of a knife to threaten one complainant. He received a total sentence of nine years’ imprisonment. His co-accused received eight years, having made admissions during police interview as well as pleading guilty.

The sentencing judge treated 12 years as the appropriate sentence after a trial. He allowed the appellant a 25 per cent reduction, although he stated that the appellant had pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that he should have received the conventional one-third reduction.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent of reducing the total sentence from nine years to eight years.

2. The normal reduction for a guilty plea at the first reasonable opportunity is one third. The timing of that opportunity is fact-sensitive. It turns on when the defendant could reasonably have indicated a willingness to plead, with proper regard to the information then available and to the benefits of an early plea.

3. The Crown had told the sentencing judge that the pleas had been entered at the first reasonable opportunity. The judge was entitled to raise and determine whether an earlier opportunity had existed, but did not do so. Instead, he expressly found that the appellant had pleaded at the first reasonable opportunity.

4. In those circumstances, there was no proper basis for reducing the appellant’s discount to 25 per cent. The appellant should have received the full one-third reduction from the accepted post-trial starting point of 12 years. The court therefore quashed the nine-year sentence and substituted eight years.

5. The court added that, where an early guilty plea scheme and related guidance operate, a plea at a plea and case management hearing is increasingly unlikely to constitute the first reasonable opportunity. Such schemes may properly encourage earlier indications of willingness to plead and the resulting savings of time and cost.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of quashing the nine-year sentence and substituting eight years.
• Crown Court at Maidstone: On 25 November 2011, imposed concurrent sentences totalling nine years after guilty pleas to three robberies.