Knight, R. v

Sentence for assisting an offender should reflect the nature and extent of the principal offender’s underlying criminality, the nature and extent of the assistance, and the extent to which it damaged the interests of justice. Comparisons with sentences in factually different assisting-offender cases will usually be of limited assistance. A guilty plea does not require full credit where the offender remained silent in interview and pleaded only when an alternative count was added.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Leeds Crown Court to assisting Karl Stewart, whom he knew was wanted in connection with a firearm. The agreed basis of plea was that he did not know Stewart had just concealed the firearm, but assisted him to evade arrest.

He received 25 months’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence, contending that the conduct was spontaneous, brief and ultimately unsuccessful, that he had limited knowledge of the firearm, and that the starting point and credit for his plea were excessive and insufficient respectively.

The central issue was the proper sentence for assistance given to an offender connected with a grave firearms offence.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment and substituted 20 months’ imprisonment.
2. In sentencing for assisting an offender, the court applied the three considerations identified in Attorney General's Reference No 16 of 2009 (Yates) [2010] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 11: the underlying offender’s criminality, the nature and extent of the assistance, and the damage caused to the interests of justice.
3. The underlying criminality was grave because it concerned a loaded, prohibited firearm capable of immediate use. However, the agreed basis of plea confined the appellant’s knowledge: he knew Stewart had earlier possessed a firearm and was wanted for firearms matters, but did not know that Stewart had concealed the weapon immediately before the police arrived.
4. The assistance was not planned and was short-lived. It was largely ineffective, although it initially helped Stewart evade the police. The court considered that comparisons with factually different assisting-offender cases, including R v Worthington-Hale [2010] EWCA Crim. 1664, were generally unhelpful.
5. The judge was entitled to allow 22 per cent credit for the guilty plea. Full credit was not warranted because the appellant had made no comment in interview. Applying the relevant considerations, the proper starting point was 30 months, rather than three years. After credit for the plea and the further reduction for delay in sentencing, the appropriate sentence was 20 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 20 months’ imprisonment for the 25-month sentence: [2018] EWCA Crim 1755.
• Crown Court at Leeds: On 5 January 2018, sentenced the appellant to 25 months’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to assisting an offender.