Bold, R. v

Under the current guilty-plea guideline, the reduction turns on the offender’s first opportunity to indicate a guilty plea at a court appearance. Admissions in interview, co-operation with the investigation and remorse do not determine that reduction. They must instead be considered separately as possible mitigation.

Where a represented defendant neither pleads guilty nor indicates an intended guilty plea in the Magistrates’ Court, a later Crown Court plea is not the first opportunity. An equivocal police-station admission, qualified by assertions of pressure or ignorance and by a refusal to assist the investigation, need not amount to mitigating credit.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Woolwich Crown Court to conspiracy to supply a Class A controlled drug. He received 12 years’ imprisonment. The judge assessed the sentence after trial at 16 years because of the quantity and purity of cocaine involved, and allowed a 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application to appeal sentence. He contended that he should have received the full one-third reduction because no Better Case Management form was completed in the Magistrates’ Court, or because he had admitted guilt in a prepared police interview statement. The central issue was whether either matter entitled him to a greater reduction for his guilty plea.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The 12-year sentence therefore remained undisturbed.
2. The Digital Case System record showed that the applicant was represented when the case was sent from the Magistrates’ Court to Woolwich Crown Court. It recorded that the plea was not guilty or that none had been indicated. Whether or not the document was formally a Better Case Management form, it performed the relevant function. The applicant had therefore neither pleaded guilty nor indicated an intention to do so at that hearing. His Crown Court plea was not his first opportunity, and he was not entitled to a one-third reduction on that basis.
3. The court applied the current guilty-plea guideline. Unlike the previous approach, which focused on the first reasonable opportunity and often interview under caution, the current guideline focuses on a court appearance. Admissions at interview, co-operation and remorse are to be assessed separately as potential mitigation, before any reduction for the guilty plea; they do not trigger or increase that reduction.
4. The prepared statement did not justify separate mitigating credit. Any admission was equivocal. It was accompanied by assertions that the applicant had acted under pressure and did not know the quantity of drugs, while he also withheld the passcode needed to examine a telephone. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that the statement provided no mitigating factor.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2019] EWCA Crim 1539.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal — refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Woolwich — on 3 December 2018, the applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply a Class A controlled drug and was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.