Spencer Keith Iontton v R

Where a guilty plea is delayed by circumstances outside the defendant’s control, a previous indication that more than the minimum discount may be appropriate should be reflected in the sentence, even if no percentage was fixed. The defendant’s ability to plead earlier may limit the enhancement. Guilty-plea credit must be assessed separately from personal mitigation. An elevated starting point may remain justified for grave offending, while remorse, lack of relevant convictions, mental disorder and rehabilitation may warrant a substantial reduction.

The appellant appealed against a seven-year sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Snaresbrook for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The offence involved igniting petrol on his son’s clothing, causing burns, scarring and significant psychological injury. The sentencing judge had treated the offence as category A culpability and category 2 harm, with a seven-year guideline starting point, but increased the starting point to eight years.

The appellant’s guilty plea followed a joint psychiatric report addressing whether he could form the specific intent required for an offence under the 1861 Act. The appeal concerned the effect of the sentencing judge’s earlier general indication that more than the minimum plea discount might be available, the appropriate discount, and the weight to be given to mitigation.

The appeal against sentence was allowed. The court quashed the sentence of seven years’ imprisonment and substituted six years.

1. Guilty-plea discount. The Recorder had previously indicated that the appellant should receive more than the minimum discount because the psychiatric evidence needed to inform the plea had been delayed for reasons outside his control. Although the indication was general and fixed no percentage, it should have been reflected in the sentence. The appellant could, however, have pleaded earlier and had chosen to await the psychiatric report. A discount of 15 per cent was therefore appropriate, rather than the 25 per cent sought.
2. Mitigation. The gravity of the offence justified increasing the starting point to eight years. The Recorder’s subsequent 12-month reduction gave inadequate weight to mitigation. The appellant’s lack of relevant previous convictions, genuine remorse, mental disorder unrelated to the offence, and determined efforts to address addiction and offending behaviour amounted to significant mitigation.
3. Sentencing calculation. Mitigation warranted a reduction of 12 months from the eight-year starting point. The resulting seven-year sentence was then to be reduced by 15 per cent for the guilty plea, producing approximately six years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against sentence allowed; the seven-year sentence was quashed and six years’ imprisonment substituted, [2024] EWCA Crim 1160.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: on 27 September 2023, Mr Recorder Barnett imposed seven years’ imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm with intent.