R v Babak Rasouli

Where a sentencing judge identifies a notional sentence after trial and specifies the credit for a guilty plea, the resulting sentence must give effect to that calculation. A mathematical mistake producing a higher sentence is an error of principle. The appellate court may correct the error by quashing the sentence and substituting the sentence reached by applying the judge’s own approach.

The appellant pleaded guilty to several drug offences and was sentenced at Harrow Crown Court to an overall term of 42 months’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge assessed the notional sentence after trial at four years and stated that she was allowing 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea, but imposed three years and six months. The appellant appealed on the ground that the guilty-plea reduction had been calculated incorrectly. The central issue was whether the sentence should be corrected by applying the stated 25 per cent reduction to the four-year notional sentence.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of 42 months and substituted a term of three years’ imprisonment, or 36 months.
2. The court found no reason to interfere with the sentencing judge’s notional sentence after trial of four years. Nor was there any basis to interfere with her assessment that the appellant was entitled to 25 per cent credit for his guilty plea.
3. Applying the judge’s own approach, a 25 per cent reduction from four years produced a sentence of three years, not three and a half years. The sentence imposed was therefore manifestly excessive and wrong in principle.
4. The error appeared to be a simple mathematical mistake. Although it was unfortunate that counsel at the sentencing hearing had not asked the judge to clarify the sentence, the Court of Appeal could and should correct the error.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 9 February 2023, the appeal against sentence was allowed. The 42-month sentence imposed by the Crown Court was quashed and replaced with a sentence of 36 months.
• Harrow Crown Court: On 25 April 2022, the appellant was sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to drug offences.