Bannergee, R. v

Under the Sentencing Council guideline on reduction for a guilty plea, credit depends on the earliest stage at which the defendant indicates guilt. After the first stage, the maximum is one quarter and reduces as the case advances towards trial.

The exception for information, assistance or advice does not apply merely because a defendant awaits evidence to assess the strength of the prosecution case. A defendant who knows that he is guilty of a permissible lesser alternative should make that position clear. In the Crown Court, an unequivocal indication of guilt to an alternative on the indictment requires entry of that plea. The prosecution’s willingness later to accept it is immaterial.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Warwick to assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He had struck the complainant on the forehead with a knife after forcing his way into the complainant’s home. He received 16 months’ imprisonment after a late guilty plea.

With limited leave, he appealed only the level of guilty-plea credit. He contended that, while charged with more serious wounding offences, he could not reasonably offer a plea until medical evidence showed that the injury was superficial. The issue was whether this justified a 25 per cent reduction rather than the reduction allowed by the sentencing judge.

Decision

1. The appeal was refused. The court held that neither the sentence nor the reduction for the guilty plea was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
2. The Sentencing Council guideline provided the governing framework. A plea at the first stage may attract a one-third reduction. After that stage, the maximum is one quarter, reducing according to the time of the plea in relation to the progress of the case and trial date.
3. The exception for information, assistance or advice did not assist the appellant. It distinguishes a genuine need for evidence or advice to understand whether the defendant is guilty in fact and law from a delay to assess the prosecution evidence or prospects of conviction. The appellant knew the allegation was that he had assaulted the complainant with a knife and had caused injury. The subsequently served medical evidence established only that the injury was superficial. It did not explain his continued denial of involvement.
4. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 was a lesser alternative available to the appellant: see DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699. If he accepted responsibility for that offence, he could and should have made this plain. Instead, he blamed another person in interview and in his defence statement, gave no unequivocal indication of guilt to the lesser offence, and entered his plea late.
5. The appellant could choose to withhold a plea, but could not thereby claim greater credit. The prosecution’s supposed unwillingness to accept an earlier plea was irrelevant. The sentencing judge correctly applied the guideline in allowing a reduction in the region of 15 per cent; in fact, the reduction from 20 to 16 months was 20 per cent. No higher reduction was warranted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — refused the appellant’s sentence appeal.
• Crown Court at Warwick — following a guilty plea to assault occasioning actual bodily harm, imposed 16 months’ imprisonment on 6 February 2020.