Smith, R v

[2020] EWCA Crim 466

Case details

Case citations
[2020] EWCA Crim 466
Court
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Judgment date
13 March 2020
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Criminal Sentencing Guilty plea discounts
Keywords
appeal against sentence guilty plea credit one-third discount sentence methodology totality consecutive sentences sexual offences
Outcome
appeal allowed (sentence varied; total term unchanged)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

When correcting a sentence after guilty pleas, the sentencing methodology must make clear the discount applied to each individual count. Where the overall term and sentence structure remain correct, the appellate court may quash and substitute the individual sentences to reflect the proper plea reduction, while leaving the total sentence unchanged.

Factual background

The appellant pleaded guilty to three offences of sexual activity with a child family member and two offences of inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity. On 30 July 2019, Nottingham Crown Court imposed a total sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

He appealed against sentence with limited leave. The sole issue was whether the judge had made the sentencing methodology sufficiently clear, particularly the credit for guilty pleas on each count.

Held

  1. Appeal allowed to the limited extent of varying the individual sentences. The court held that the judge had identified a notional sentence after trial of 15 years’ imprisonment and reduced the overall term to 10 years for guilty pleas. However, the judge had not made clear the plea discount applied to each count.
  2. The appropriate correction was to apply a full one-third credit to each sentence imposed. The sentences on counts 1, 2 and 4 were quashed and replaced with sentences of 40 months’ imprisonment each. The sentence on count 3 was quashed and replaced with 24 months’ imprisonment. The sentence on count 5 was quashed and replaced with 80 months’ imprisonment.
  3. The sentencing structure was unchanged. The sentences on counts 1 to 4 were concurrent with one another and consecutive to the sentence on count 5. The total sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment therefore stood.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): in [2020] EWCA Crim 466, allowed the sentence appeal to correct the individual terms and clarify the guilty-plea discount, while maintaining the overall 10-year term.
  • Nottingham Crown Court: on 30 July 2019, sentenced the appellant following guilty pleas to a total of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
appeal allowed (sentence varied; total term unchanged)

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.