Shucksmith, R. v

Where a statutory minimum sentence applies and credit for a guilty plea is capped, the court should first determine the proper sentence for the offending after plea credit. If that figure is below 80 per cent of the specified minimum term, it must be increased to that statutory floor. The overall criminality, including a concurrent weapon offence, must be reflected proportionately and must not produce an excessive starting point.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Canterbury Crown Court to possessing heroin with intent to supply and possessing a machete. He had previous convictions for Class A drug offences, so the minimum-sentence regime applied.

The sentencing judge imposed seven years’ imprisonment for the drug offence and a concurrent nine months for the machete. The appellant appealed on the basis that the judge’s starting point was too high after allowing credit for his guilty plea.

The central issue was the proper calculation of a sentence where the appropriate sentence after plea credit fell below the statutory minimum floor.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence for the drug offence was reduced from seven years to five years and eight months. The concurrent nine-month sentence for possessing the machete remained in place.

2. The court accepted that seven years was the appropriate sentence for the drug offence before allowing for the machete offence and plea credit. Although the machete could properly affect totality, it could not justify the excessive increase implicit in the sentencing judge’s reasoning.

3. If the totality of the offending were reflected in count 1, the proper pre-credit sentence was eight years, with a concurrent nine-month term on count 2. Applying full plea credit reduced the eight-year term to 64 months.

4. Under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 110, read with the guilty-plea limitation in Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 144, the court applied Gray [2007] EWCA Crim. 979. The correct method was to determine the appropriate sentence after plea credit and then raise it to 80 per cent of the specified minimum term if necessary. The 64-month figure was therefore increased to 68 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted five years and eight months’ imprisonment for count 1.

• Crown Court at Canterbury: On 16 October 2014, imposed seven years’ imprisonment for possession of a Class A drug with intent to supply and a concurrent nine months for possessing a bladed article.