Hodgin, R. v

For the full one-third reduction under section D1 of the Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea Definitive Guideline, an indictable-only defendant who cannot enter a plea in the magistrates’ court must give an unequivocal indication of an intention to plead guilty. An indication of a likely guilty plea keeps the defendant’s options open and is insufficient.

The exception in section F1 applies where particular circumstances significantly impair the defendant’s ability to understand the allegation or make an earlier indication unreasonable. It does not apply where the defendant knew the detailed allegation and his own conduct. If a trial of issue has been prepared because a realistic basis of plea was offered late, the sentencing judge retains a discretion to reduce the credit otherwise available for a plea entered at the PTPH.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to conspiracy to commit burglary. At the magistrates’ court, when the indictable-only charge was sent for trial, his solicitor recorded likely guilty plea on the prescribed Better Case Management form. He pleaded guilty at the PTPH about 10 weeks later, initially advanced an unacceptable and limited basis of plea, and reached an acceptable basis shortly before a prepared trial of issue.

His Honour Judge Woodward sentenced him to six years and nine months’ imprisonment and allowed 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea. The appellant contended that he was entitled to the full one-third reduction because of the magistrates’ court entry, alternatively under section F1 of the Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea Definitive Guideline.

The central issue was whether that entry was an indication of a guilty plea and, if not, whether the circumstances nevertheless required full credit.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge correctly allowed 25 per cent, rather than one-third, credit for the appellant’s guilty plea.

2. Section D1 of the Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea Definitive Guideline requires a one-third reduction where a guilty plea is indicated at the first stage of proceedings. For an indictable-only offence, where the magistrates’ court can obtain only an indication, the indication must unequivocally state that the defendant intends to plead guilty. Likely guilty plea does not do so. It leaves open both whether a plea will be entered and the possible basis of plea.

3. R v Hewison [2019] EWCA Crim 1278 did not establish a contrary rule. It depended on an unauthorised form which asked for likely pleas and recorded “G”. On that form, the entry could amount to no more than an unequivocal indication of guilt. The prescribed Better Case Management form must be used to avoid such uncertainty.

4. The section F1 exception did not apply. Although a conspiracy allegation may sometimes require further advice or evidence before an informed indication can reasonably be made, this appellant knew the detailed allegations and his own extensive involvement. The charge identified the burglaries said to form the conspiracy, and he could and should have indicated an unequivocal guilty plea while reserving the precise basis of plea.

5. Section F2 did not require the credit to be halved because no Newton hearing occurred. Nevertheless, where a trial of issue has been listed and prepared but is avoided only after a late realistic basis of plea, the sentencing judge has discretion to reduce the credit otherwise available for a PTPH plea. The appellant’s late acceptable basis independently supported the 25 per cent reduction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appeal against sentence and upheld 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea.

• Crown Court at Chester On 13 February 2020, His Honour Judge Woodward sentenced the appellant to six years and nine months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to commit burglary, allowing 25 per cent credit for the plea.