Askys, R. v

A defendant who does not plead guilty at the earliest opportunity may properly receive less than full credit for the plea. The assessment of appropriate credit is primarily for the sentencing judge, particularly where the judge has addressed the issue and assessed the defendant’s remorse.

An asserted disparity with a co-defendant does not establish error merely because different percentages of credit were allowed. The court must consider the sentencing judge’s reasons and all material differences affecting the sentences, including credit allowed for considerations that do not apply to the appellant.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Woolwich to possession of a Class A controlled drug with intent to supply and to possession of a false identity document. He received thirteen and a half years’ imprisonment for the drug offence and six months’ imprisonment consecutively for the document offence, making fourteen years in total.

A co-defendant received nine years’ imprisonment for the drug offence. The appellant sought an extension of time and renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence after a single judge had refused leave. His sole complaint was that he received 25% credit for his guilty pleas whereas the co-defendant received 33%.

1. The court refused leave to appeal against sentence. There was no error in allowing the appellant a reduction of 25% for his guilty pleas.

2. The appellant had not pleaded at the earliest opportunity. He could therefore not ordinarily expect full credit. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the timing of the plea and the absence of an earlier indication of remorse as relevant when fixing credit.

3. The judge had expressly considered whether the appellant and his co-defendant should receive the same credit and gave reasons for declining to do so. An appellate court should be slow to interfere with that assessment, since the sentencing judge was better placed to evaluate it.

4. The claimed disparity also failed when the sentences were viewed as a whole. The co-defendant’s circumstances differed and he received credit for other considerations which did not apply to the appellant.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellant’s renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
• Crown Court at Woolwich: The appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a total of fourteen years’ imprisonment.