R v Goodale

Sentencing is ordinarily an evaluative exercise, not an arithmetical one. A stated assurance of a precise level of credit for a guilty plea may, however, entitle an offender to correction of the sentence, subject to immaterial discrepancies such as conventional rounding.

Where the relevant minimum sentence and the maximum plea credit are both fixed by statute, and the judge intends to apply both, the resulting sentence is a matter of arithmetic. The court may not impose a sentence below that result, and the offender is entitled to a sentence no longer than it.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Leicester Crown Court to conspiracy to supply diamorphine. It was his third relevant conviction for supplying class A drugs. The sentencing judge applied the seven-year minimum under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 110, and purported to allow 20 per cent credit for the guilty plea. She imposed five years and eight months’ imprisonment.

The single judge referred the application to appeal against sentence because of a minor arithmetical error. The applicant also relied on a disparity between his sentence and that of a co-defendant in a similar role. The central issues were whether that disparity made application of the statutory minimum unjust and whether the stated credit required correction of the sentence.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The court quashed the sentence of five years and eight months and substituted one of five years and 219 days.
2. The disparity between the applicant’s sentence and that of a co-defendant did not make it unjust to apply the statutory minimum in section 110 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The sentencing judge was right to reject that submission.
3. In the ordinary sentencing exercise, a court should not analyse the sentence arithmetically. The sentencing judge chooses a starting point and the appropriate reduction for a guilty plea by evaluative judgment; the final sentence is what matters. The court endorsed that general approach in R v Martin [2006] EWCA Crim. 1035.
4. An exception arises where the judge unambiguously states that a particular percentage or full amount of credit will be given. Apart from very minor discrepancies, including ordinary rounding to whole months, the offender may obtain correction so that the sentence reflects that assurance. R v Clough [2010] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 53 illustrated that principle. Counsel should ordinarily raise any discrepancy when sentence is passed rather than pursue an appeal without good reason.
5. This case required a different approach because the seven-year minimum and the maximum 20 per cent guilty-plea credit were fixed by statute. Once the judge intended to use both variables, the result was arithmetically fixed. The judge could neither impose less than that result nor impose a longer sentence. A 20 per cent reduction from seven years produced five years and 219 days, not five years and eight months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Following a referral by the single judge, the court allowed the appeal to the limited extent of correcting the arithmetical error and substituted a sentence of five years and 219 days.
• Crown Court at Leicester: On 26 January 2012, following a guilty plea to conspiracy to supply diamorphine, the applicant was sentenced to five years and eight months’ imprisonment.