AAF, R. v

When an offender provides information to the police outside a formal statutory agreement, any additional sentencing reduction depends on the information’s quality, quantity, novelty and practical value. A sentencing court must also consider any resulting personal jeopardy. Low-grade intelligence which produces no arrests or seizures may justify some reduction, but not a reduction comparable with that ordinarily available for substantial assistance under a formal scheme.

The reduction for assistance is made before credit for a guilty plea. The exercise is fact-specific and governed by totality, not rigid arithmetic. An appellate court may correct a sentence which, even allowing for assistance, falls so far below the applicable sentencing range that it is unduly lenient.

The offender pleaded guilty at a late stage to an offence involving the supply of controlled drugs. He had controlled the enterprise in this country, the supply was extensive and valuable, and he had relevant previous convictions.

The Crown Court imposed a custodial sentence. The Solicitor General then sought leave to refer it as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

The central issue was the proper reduction for information the offender had supplied informally to the police under the “text” system. The information generated intelligence reports and added to the intelligence picture, but led to no arrests or seizures.

1. Application granted. The court held that the Crown Court sentence was unduly lenient. It quashed that sentence and substituted ten years and nine months’ imprisonment.
2. The offender’s role, the scale and value of the drugs, and his previous convictions meant that the sentence after trial would normally have been 15 years’ custody. The court accepted in substance the Solicitor General’s submission that the sentence imposed had fallen far below the level normally appropriate under the applicable guideline.
3. The court applied the established principles concerning assistance to the authorities. Under R v A and B [1999] 1 Cr App R (S) 52, the value of assistance depends on its quality and quantity, including whether it is accurate, particularised, useful and previously unknown. The informal “text” system remains available alongside agreements under sections 71 to 75 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, as explained in R v P and Blackburn [2007] EWCA Crim 2290; [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 5.
4. Here, the information had some value because it contributed to intelligence concerning organised crime. Its value was nevertheless relatively low: much was graded low, and it produced neither arrests nor seizures. A 20 per cent reduction for that assistance was the maximum justified. The reduction had to precede the guilty-plea discount, but the overall exercise was not mechanical and had to respect totality.
5. The court also applied R v S [2019] EWCA Crim 569. Although the sentencing judge ordinarily has discretion in assessing assistance, intervention was justified because the resulting sentence could not properly be regarded as within the available sentencing discretion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted the Solicitor General leave to refer the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held it unduly lenient, quashed it and substituted a sentence of ten years and nine months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court: Sentenced the offender for an offence involving the supply of controlled drugs. The judgment gives no citation for that decision.