R v Maughan (Northern Ireland)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's challenge to the sentence. The court held that article 33 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 requires a court to take into account the stage in the proceedings for the offence at which an offender indicated an intention to plead guilty, but the term "proceedings" does not extend to the police investigative questioning that precedes charge or service of a summons. The court further held that article 33 does not preclude the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland from developing sentencing guidance (including treating failure to admit wrongdoing in interview as relevant to discount) and that longstanding Northern Ireland authority distinguishing cases where an offender was "caught red-handed" (or where the prosecution case is overwhelming) remains a lawful basis for moderating the discount for a guilty plea.

The court concluded there was no error of law in the Crown Court's or Court of Appeal's approach to (i) identifying the first reasonable opportunity to indicate a plea and (ii) reducing the plea discount where the defendant was caught red-handed. The appellant's sentence of 14 years was therefore affirmed.

Background and facts

• The appellant pleaded guilty at arraignment on 14 September 2017 to multiple offences including aggravated burglary, theft, false imprisonment and related offences arising from a series of incidents in July 2016. He and his brother were arrested after a rapid police pursuit; items taken were recovered and CCTV and other evidence linked them to other burglaries. The appellant made no admissions at police interview and gave no indication of an intention to plead guilty prior to arraignment.

Procedural posture

• The appellant was sentenced on 21 December 2017 at Downpatrick Crown Court. He appealed; the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland dismissed the appeal ([2019] NICA 66). The case came to the Supreme Court on the issue whether the sentencing judge had erred in reducing the guilty-plea discount because (i) the appellant did not accept responsibility in police interview or indicate a plea before arraignment and (ii) he had been caught "red-handed" for some offences.

Issues framed by the court

1. Whether the term "proceedings for the offence" in article 33 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 includes the pre-charge police investigative questioning.
2. Whether it was lawful to reduce a guilty-plea discount where the defendant had been caught red-handed or where the prosecution case was overwhelming.

Court's reasoning and conclusions

• On issue (i) the court analysed statutory context, authorities and the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. It concluded that "proceedings" in article 33 refer to the point at which proceedings are instituted (charge, summons or presentation of an indictment), and do not include police interview conducted as part of the investigation. The court added that article 33 is not prescriptive about how an indication of intention to plead must be given and does not prevent appellate courts from developing sentencing practice; accordingly a sentencing policy that regards failure to admit at interview as relevant to discount is lawful so long as it is not perverse.
• On issue (ii) the court accepted that long-established practice permits moderation of the discount where the accused is caught red-handed or the prosecution case is overwhelming, subject to caution and sparing use. Developments in other jurisdictions towards granting full discount in overwhelming cases do not render the Northern Ireland approach unlawful.
• The Supreme Court found no error of law in the Crown Court's or Court of Appeal's approach and dismissed the appeal.

Relief sought

• The appellant sought to overturn aspects of the sentencing judge's reduction of the guilty-plea discount; in substance the appeal was against the sentence imposed.

This was an appeal against sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that article 33 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 does not treat the pre-charge police investigative interview as part of "proceedings for the offence" but that article 33 does not prevent the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland developing sentencing guidance. The court also held that reducing the guilty-plea discount where the offender was caught red-handed or where the prosecution case is overwhelming remains a lawful approach. There was no error of law in the sentencing judge's or Court of Appeal's application of those principles.

On appeal from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland [2019] NICA 66; original sentence imposed at Downpatrick Crown Court on 21 December 2017 after plea at arraignment on 14 September 2017.