BFE v R

Where an offender provides confidential information to the authorities, an inability to assess its immediate positive value does not prevent an appropriate reduction in sentence. The sentencing court must assess all relevant circumstances, including the information’s potential utility and the distinct risk assumed by the offender and family members. Substantial risk may warrant weight independently of proved operational results. Minimal or no credit for potentially useful information given at such risk may harm the public interest.

Anonymity and related derogations from open justice require strict necessity, but may be justified where identification creates a real risk to Article 2 or Article 3 rights.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court and received an immediate custodial sentence. He had provided highly confidential information to the authorities shortly before sentence. The sentencing judge treated it as of some but minimal assistance and gave only minimal credit.

The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that insufficient weight had been given to the information and to the risk arising from its provision. He also sought anonymity because disclosure could endanger him and members of his family. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the sentencing reduction was inadequate and whether anonymity was strictly necessary.

1. Leave was granted and the appeal against sentence was allowed. The court reduced the term of imprisonment because insufficient credit had been given for the confidential information supplied by the appellant.
2. The applicable assessment is fact-sensitive. Applying the framework in R v Royle and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 1311, the court considered the quality and quantity of the information, its duration, its assistance to the authorities, the degree of assistance, the risk to the informer and family, the informer’s own offending and admissions, prior reliance on the assistance, and any payment.
3. The information concerned potentially serious offending. Its immediate operational value could not yet be fully assessed, but it had not been positively assessed as worthless. Information that is potentially useful for future intelligence purposes may properly attract credit even if it has not yet led to persons being brought to justice or crime being disrupted.
4. The risk to the appellant and his wider family was significant. Risk is a distinct consideration which may require appropriate weight independently of the actual value of the information. In the circumstances, giving no or only minimal credit would detrimentally affect the public interest. A further reduction was therefore required before credit for the guilty plea was taken into account.
5. The court also made an anonymity order under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The risk of harm to the appellant and family made the departure from open justice strictly necessary. No report may identify, or tend to identify, the appellant or his family.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal against sentence was granted and the appeal was allowed; the sentence of imprisonment was reduced: [2024] EWCA Crim 1198.
• Crown Court: The appellant pleaded guilty and received an immediate custodial sentence. The court sentenced him without a pre-sentence report.