Winton, R v

A statutory minimum sentence for a third Class A drug trafficking offence does not prevent a reduction for a guilty plea. Under section 144(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, an adult sentenced under section 110(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 may receive a sentence of not less than 80% of the specified minimum, after the plea has been taken into account. The separate exception for particular circumstances making the minimum unjust does not displace that entitlement. The applicable Sentencing Council guideline governs the reduction. The seven-year sentence was quashed and a sentence of five years and eight months substituted.

The appellant pleaded guilty, before trial, to two offences of possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply, together with two driving offences. He had extensive previous convictions, including relevant Class A drug trafficking convictions. The sentencing judge concluded that section 110 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 applied, found no particular circumstances making the minimum sentence unjust, and imposed concurrent sentences of seven years. The judge declined to give credit for the guilty pleas.

The appeal concerned whether the minimum sentence provision prevented credit under section 144 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Sentencing Council’s Overarching Guideline.

1. Appeal allowed. The seven-year sentences were quashed and concurrent sentences of five years and eight months were substituted.
2. The court agreed that section 110 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 applied. No particular circumstances made imposition of the statutory minimum unjust. That issue had not been renewed on appeal.
3. However, section 144(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 expressly permits the court, after taking account of the timing and circumstances of a guilty plea under section 144(1), to impose a sentence below the specified minimum, provided that it is not less than 80% of that minimum. Section 110(2) is one of the provisions listed in section 144(3).
4. The Sentencing Council’s Overarching Guideline is consistent with that statutory scheme. Although a plea indicated after the first stage of proceedings ordinarily attracts a maximum reduction of one-quarter, paragraph F5 expressly covers a prescribed custodial sentence under section 110 and permits a sentence of at least 80% of the appropriate or prescribed period.
5. The sentencing judge therefore erred in treating the statutory minimum as preventing any credit for the pleas. There was no other reason to withhold the credit to which the appellant was entitled.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On an appeal against sentence, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the concurrent seven-year sentences and substituted concurrent sentences of five years and eight months: [2020] EWCA Crim 1321.