REGINA v SIMON PETER MORRISEY

A court sentencing an offender who pleads guilty must follow the relevant guilty-plea guideline unless departure would be contrary to the interests of justice. The relevant time is when the offender indicates an intention to plead guilty, rather than when the plea is formally entered.

An indication at the first stage of proceedings attracts a one-third reduction. The strength of the prosecution evidence cannot reduce that credit. A sentence based on a lesser reduction for a first-stage plea is wrong in principle unless a proper interests-of-justice basis for departure is identified.

The appellant pleaded guilty at his first appearance before Cardiff Magistrates’ Court to attempted burglary. The offence was committed while two suspended sentences imposed in the Crown Court remained operational.

On 22 July 2021, Cardiff Crown Court imposed 12 months’ imprisonment for the attempted burglary after allowing 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea. It activated the suspended sentences for consecutive terms of seven and five months, producing a total of 24 months’ imprisonment.

The appellant appealed against sentence on the sole ground that the Recorder had allowed insufficient credit for his guilty plea. The central issue was whether a plea indicated and entered at the first stage of proceedings required the one-third reduction prescribed by the guilty-plea guideline.

The appeal was allowed. The 12-month sentence for attempted burglary was quashed and replaced with 11 months’ imprisonment. The activated suspended sentences remained unchanged, reducing the total custodial term from 24 to 23 months.

1. Section 72 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires the sentencing court to consider the stage at which an offender indicated an intention to plead guilty and the circumstances of that indication. Under section 59, the court must follow a relevant sentencing guideline unless this would be contrary to the interests of justice.

2. The Sentencing Council guideline focuses on when the plea was indicated, not when it was entered. It deliberately distinguishes the full reduction available at the first stage of proceedings from a lesser reduction for a later indication. This approach had recently been clarified in R v Plaku and others [2021] EWCA Crim 568.

3. The appellant indicated, and entered, his guilty plea at his first appearance on the day after the offence. He was therefore entitled to a one-third reduction unless a departure from the guideline was justified in the interests of justice.

4. The apparent basis for allowing only 25 per cent credit was that the appellant had been caught red-handed and the prosecution case was overwhelming. That was impermissible. The guideline states that the strength of the evidence must not affect the level of reduction, because the benefits of an early plea apply regardless of evidential strength.

5. No interests-of-justice basis for departure was identified. The Recorder’s sentence was consequently wrong in principle. Applying a one-third reduction to a starting term of 16 months produced the substituted sentence of 11 months.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 11 months’ imprisonment for the attempted burglary: [2021] EWCA Crim 1673.
2. Cardiff Crown Court On 22 July 2021, imposed 12 months’ imprisonment for attempted burglary after 25 per cent guilty-plea credit, and activated two suspended sentences for consecutive terms of seven and five months.
3. Cardiff Magistrates’ Court On 24 June 2021, the appellant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.