Wilson, R. v

A sentencing judge should not reduce or remove credit for a guilty plea solely because the defendant gave false evidence to assist another defendant at trial. The position differs where the defendant dishonestly seeks, in pre-sentence material, to reduce his own culpability. An appellate court may nevertheless dismiss a sentence appeal despite identifying an error if reducing the sentence would produce an unjust overall outcome. In making that assessment, the court may consider an uncorrected error concerning consecutive sentencing and the principle of totality, while avoiding an increase in sentence on the defendant’s appeal.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Swindon to possessing crack cocaine and heroin with intent to supply. He had travelled from London to Swindon with a co-accused while on bail for earlier offences. The Recorder sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment on each count, concurrently.

The Recorder withheld all credit for the guilty pleas because the appellant had given false evidence at the co-accused’s trial. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that he was entitled to the full one-third reduction for his early pleas. The central issue was whether the false evidence justified withholding plea credit and, if not, whether the sentence should be reduced.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder erred in withholding all credit for the appellant’s guilty pleas solely because he had given false evidence in an attempt to secure his co-accused’s acquittal. The established distinction is between false evidence given to assist another at trial, which does not by itself justify reducing plea credit, and a dishonest pre-sentence attempt by a defendant to reduce his own culpability. The appellant fell within the former category. On the Recorder’s figures, full credit would ordinarily have reduced the sentence from six years to four years.
2. That error did not require a reduction in sentence. The Court identified a further significant error: the Recorder should in principle have made the sentence consecutive to the earlier sentence imposed for the London offences, subject to a reduction required by totality. The Court could not correct that error by imposing a consecutive sentence because that would risk making the appellant’s position worse on his own appeal.
3. The six-year sentence actually imposed nevertheless resulted in an overall sentence within the appropriate range. Allowing the appeal and reducing it for plea credit would have produced an overall sentence below that range. In the unusual circumstances, a reduction would therefore have been unjust. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal against sentence, notwithstanding the error in withholding guilty-plea credit.
• Crown Court at Swindon: On 28 July 2017, imposed six years’ imprisonment on each drug-supply count, concurrently.