Dixon, R v

When considering an unduly lenient sentence, the court may reflect the increased severity of custody during the Covid-19 pandemic and exceptional delay before sentence. The allowance must remain proportionate, particularly for a long custodial term.

A guilty plea indicated after the first stage of proceedings attracts a reduced discount under the relevant guideline. The exception for a defendant who reasonably needs further information or advice is narrow and does not justify an excessive reduction where the defendant already knew the material facts. Sentencing must reflect the totality of serious firearms offending, while giving conventional weight to personal mitigation.

The respondent pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to offences involving the importation, sale and possession of prohibited firearms, ammunition, an explosive substance and forgeries. On 5 March 2021, HHJ Tomlinson imposed concurrent sentences totalling eight years’ imprisonment.

The Solicitor General sought leave to refer the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The central issues were the proper categorisation and totality sentence for the firearms offending, the appropriate reductions for delay, Covid-19 prison conditions and the guilty plea, and whether double jeopardy had any application.

1. The court granted leave and allowed the reference. The eight-year total sentence was unduly lenient. The court quashed the sentences on counts 3, 4 and 5 and substituted concurrent terms of 11 years’ imprisonment, concurrent with the undisturbed sentences on the remaining counts.

2. The sentencing judge had correctly placed the lead firearms offences in category 2B. However, the 10-year starting point required a significant upward movement to 15 years before mitigation. This reflected the respondent’s organised trading over six months, the quantity and range of weapons, and the need for the lead sentences to reflect the totality of the criminality.

3. The respondent’s lack of convictions, cooperation, good character, remorse, mental health, prison conduct and family consequences were substantial conventional mitigation. Those matters, together with a properly limited allowance for delay and prison conditions, reduced the pre-plea sentence to 13 years.

4. The court applied the ordinary sentencing approach described in R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592. Covid-19 conditions had made the respondent’s actual custody markedly more onerous and could not be ignored. Yet, for a long sentence, their proportionate effect was limited. Delay and those conditions justified no more than six months’ reduction, rather than 18 months.

5. Applying R v Plaku [2021] EWCA Crim 568 and the guilty-plea guideline, a 20% reduction was not justified. Although the respondent could await advice, he knew the firearms’ classification. The appropriate reduction was 15%, producing an 11-year sentence. Double jeopardy did not apply.

6. The release provisions did not require service of two thirds of the substituted sentence. The respondent would serve one half of the total sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was allowed. Concurrent 11-year sentences were substituted on counts 3, 4 and 5.
• Southwark Crown Court: On 5 March 2021, HHJ Tomlinson imposed concurrent sentences totalling eight years’ imprisonment.