Carew, R. v

A defendant who pleads guilty only after a trial has begun should ordinarily receive the appropriate reduction for the plea. A late plea may justify a reduced discount, but does not of itself justify withholding all credit. Where the applicable sentencing guideline recommends a one-tenth reduction and no stated reason for withholding it applies, a sentencing court should give that credit. A court departing from the guideline must give an adequate reason. The encouragement of late acceptance of responsibility remains important, including because it may avert a miscarriage of justice.

The applicant pleaded guilty, after the jury had been sworn and the complainant had given evidence, to robbery and wounding with intent. The offences arose from the taking of the complainant’s mobile telephone after the applicant stabbed his hand with a broken bottle.

At the Inner London Crown Court, the applicant received nine years’ detention in a young offender institution for wounding with intent and a concurrent eight years for robbery. The judge gave no credit for the late guilty pleas. The applicant renewed, following refusal by the single judge, his application for leave to appeal against sentence. The sole issue was whether a reduction for the guilty pleas should have been made.

1. Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed. The sentences were varied to reflect credit for the applicant’s late guilty pleas.
2. The applicable Sentencing Council guideline required the reduction to be a proportion of the total sentence, determined particularly by the stage at which the plea was indicated. It recommended a reduction of one tenth where a plea was entered at the door of the court or after trial had begun. The guideline referred to section 144(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
3. The reasons identified in the guideline for withholding a reduction did not apply. The sentencing judge was required to give adequate reasons for departing from the guideline, but the lateness of the plea alone did not justify refusing all credit.
4. The court agreed with its conclusion in the co-defendant’s appeal. A late plea can require courage and should be encouraged because it represents acceptance of offending and can avoid a miscarriage of justice. A ten per cent reduction was therefore appropriate.
5. The sentence for wounding with intent was reduced from nine years to eight years and one month’s detention in a young offender institution. The robbery sentence was reduced from eight years to seven years and two months, concurrent.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): leave granted and appeal against sentence allowed; the custodial terms were reduced to give ten per cent credit for the late guilty pleas.
• Inner London Crown Court: the applicant pleaded guilty after the trial had begun and was sentenced to nine years’ detention for wounding with intent, with eight years’ detention for robbery concurrently. No credit was allowed for the guilty pleas.