Dickinson, R v

A defendant seeking credit for an intended plea to a lesser offence must ordinarily give the court a formal and unequivocal indication of that intention. An indication confined to the defendant’s legal team, or an equivocal entry on a preparation form, will not ordinarily attract the credit available for an early plea.

In assessing sentence for serious unlawful wounding, the court must give full weight to youth, lack of convictions and significant psychological, psychiatric and learning difficulties. Reaching 18 is not a sentencing cliff edge. Those factors may nevertheless be outweighed by sustained, planned knife violence against multiple victims.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Preston Crown Court to two counts of unlawful wounding contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The counts arose from a planned night-time group attack in the home of the two victims. The appellant used a knife and caused stab wounds to both victims.

She was aged 18, had no previous convictions, and had significant mental-health, learning and autism-related difficulties. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent detention terms of two years and eight months and 18 months in a young offender institution.

With leave of the single judge, she appealed against sentence. She contended that the judge had insufficiently reflected her personal mitigation and had allowed too little credit for her guilty pleas, which were entered on the trial date.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of two years and eight months’ detention in a young offender institution was not excessive.

2. The offending was properly treated as Category 1 assault-guideline offending. It was a sustained and planned group attack, committed at night in the victims’ home. The appellant played a major role, used a knife, injured two victims and subjected one victim to further degrading conduct. A pre-credit sentence of about three years was not excessive and was, in context, merciful and lenient.

3. The court gave full weight to the appellant’s lack of previous convictions, youth, immaturity, psychiatric and psychological difficulties, learning difficulties and autism. It accepted that attaining 18 does not create a cliff edge in sentencing. Those matters did not, however, displace the gravity of the two unlawful-wounding offences. Her subsequent pregnancy did not undermine the need for a custodial sentence of significance.

4. The judge was entitled to allow only 10 per cent credit for the guilty pleas. At the plea and trial-preparation hearing the appellant had pleaded not guilty to the counts on the indictment. No unequivocal offer to plead guilty to alternative section 20 counts was communicated to the court, and no request was made to add such counts. The later defence case statement remained equivocal and advanced self-defence in respect of one victim.

5. An intended plea to a lesser offence will ordinarily attract appropriate credit only if it is formally and unequivocally indicated to the court. An uncommunicated indication to the defendant’s own legal team is insufficient. The psychiatric and psychological reports ultimately confirmed that the appellant was fit to plead, and disclosed no relevant defence. There was therefore no error of principle in the sentencing judge’s approach.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2019] EWCA Crim 484.
• Crown Court at Preston: On 6 September 2018, imposed concurrent detention terms of two years and eight months and 18 months in a young offender institution following guilty pleas to two offences under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.