R v Paul John Smith & Anor

A defendant seeking the maximum reduction for a guilty plea must give a clear and unequivocal indication that he will plead guilty to the offence charged. A statement that he will make admissions in a particular capacity may be ambiguous and does not necessarily amount to such an indication.

The exception for a defendant needing further information, assistance or advice does not apply where the defendant knew the charge and its essential evidential basis. The sentencing judge retains responsibility for deciding the appropriate reduction and is not bound by an earlier indication from another judge or by the prosecution’s view.

Paul Smith and Stephen McAllister made renewed applications for permission to appeal sentences imposed in the Crown Court at Southwark for serious Class A drug-supply offending. Smith received 11 years’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to being concerned in the supply of Class A and Class B drugs. McAllister received concurrent sentences of 15 years’ imprisonment for possession with intent to supply, and being concerned in the supply of, Class A drugs.

Smith challenged his leading-role assessment, alleged disparity with McAllister’s sentence, and contended that his sentence was excessive. McAllister contended that he should have received the full one-third reduction for his guilty pleas. The single judge had refused permission. Smith also sought an extension of time.

1. The court refused both renewed applications for permission to appeal sentence. It also refused Smith’s application for an extension of time. Neither application disclosed an arguable error in the sentencing judge’s approach.

2. Smith’s leading-role classification was open to the judge. He took delivery of 10 kilograms of cocaine, transported it to premises where it was prepared for onward supply, and undertook important activity in a wholesale operation from which substantial financial advantage was expected. There was no objectionable disparity: the pre-credit sentences were 16½ years for Smith and 20 years for McAllister. Although Smith’s sentence was slightly above the guideline range, it remained within the reasonable range in light of the quantity and seriousness of the offending and his previous conviction for Class A drug supply and possession of a prohibited firearm.

3. McAllister was not entitled to a full reduction for his pleas. The court endorsed the requirement in R v Plaku [2021] EWCA Crim 568 that an indication of a guilty plea must be unequivocal. The statement that he would make admissions as a courier was not a clear indication that he would plead guilty. He knew the charge and the essential case against him from the case summary, and did not require further information, advice or assistance before indicating a plea. The sentencing judge was entitled to allow a 25 per cent reduction and was not bound by an earlier indication at the PTPH or by the prosecution’s view.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications for permission to appeal sentence were refused. Smith’s application for an extension of time was also refused.

• Crown Court at Southwark: Smith was sentenced on 27 February 2023 to 11 years’ imprisonment. McAllister was sentenced on 14 March 2023 to concurrent terms of 15 years’ imprisonment.

• Single judge: Permission to appeal sentence was refused.