R v Sandro Dias

A guilty plea discount must be calculated accurately against the notional sentence before discount. An inadvertent mathematical error may be corrected on appeal by quashing and replacing the affected sentence. Where confiscation proceedings are pending, the decision on a surcharge should ordinarily be postponed until those proceedings conclude.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two sets of offences involving the supply of Class A drugs. The Crown Court at Winchester imposed a total sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, comprising concurrent sentences of three years for the first set and four years for the second set, which were consecutive.

On a limited appeal, leave was granted to challenge an apparent miscalculation of the guilty plea discount applied to the second set of offences. The Court also considered the position concerning any surcharge order while confiscation proceedings remained pending.

The appeal succeeded on the limited sentencing ground.

1. Calculation of discount. The sentencing judge assessed the notional sentence for the second set of offences at five years and stated that a 25 per cent discount would be applied for the plea entered at the pre-trial preparation hearing. A 25 per cent reduction of five years produces a sentence of three years and nine months, not four years. The error was an inadvertent mathematical slip.
2. Sentence substituted. The court quashed the concurrent four-year sentences on counts 1 and 2 on indictment 44BBO647722 and replaced them with sentences of three years and nine months. Those sentences remained concurrent with each other and consecutive to the three-year sentences imposed for the earlier offences. The adjusted total sentence was six years and nine months. All other sentences and orders remained unchanged.
3. Surcharge. Referring to R v Bristowe [2019] EWCA Crim 2005, the court stated that a decision on a surcharge should ordinarily be postponed until the outcome of confiscation proceedings. The court log did not record that a surcharge order had been made. It therefore confirmed that no such order was presently recorded, leaving any decision on surcharge to be dealt with after the confiscation proceedings.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the limited appeal, quashed the affected four-year sentences and substituted concurrent sentences of three years and nine months.
• Crown Court at Winchester: sentenced the appellant on 26 July 2023 to a total of seven years’ imprisonment for two sets of Class A drug supply offences.