R v Melik Yalcin

When an offender pleads guilty after the first opportunity, the sentencing judge has discretion as to the reduction. The maximum reduction is not automatic merely because the plea was entered before trial. The court must consider the stage at which the intention to plead guilty was indicated and the circumstances of the indication, including the chronology of relevant counts. A 20 per cent reduction was justified where pleas were not entered at the first opportunity, the case had been warned for trial, and a later basis of plea was unacceptable and withdrawn. Mental disorder, character references and a favourable prison record may provide limited mitigation, but do not require a greater reduction or make a serious sentence manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and cannabis with intent to supply and to being concerned in their supply, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Crown Court at Lewes imposed a total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment, taking the Class A supply offence as the lead offence and applying a 20 per cent guilty-plea reduction.

The applicant renewed an application for permission to appeal against sentence. He argued that he should have received the maximum 25 per cent reduction and that insufficient weight had been given to his mental-health conditions and other mitigation. The central issues were whether the plea reduction was appropriate in the circumstances and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence of 12 years for serious Class A drugs offending was not arguably manifestly excessive.
2. Under section 73 of the Sentencing Code, the court must take into account both the stage at which the offender indicated an intention to plead guilty and the circumstances in which that indication was given. The Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline on reduction for a guilty plea provides that, after the first stage of proceedings, the maximum reduction is 25 per cent, with the reduction decreasing according to the progress of the case and the timing of the plea.
3. Where pleas are not entered at the first opportunity, the percentage reduction is a matter for the sentencing judge’s discretion. The chronology must be assessed across the offences where relevant, rather than only by reference to the most serious count. The court applied R v Plaku [2021] EWCA Crim 568, which recognises that, in multi-count cases, credits may be assessed separately or by taking a view across the charges as a whole, depending on the circumstances.
4. Here, no plea was indicated at the first Crown Court appearances for the possession counts; the case had been warned for trial; and the later basis of plea was unacceptable and withdrawn. In those circumstances, the judge was entitled to award 20 per cent rather than 25 per cent, and there was no error justifying appellate interference.
5. The sentencing judge had taken full account of the limited favourable matters. The court agreed that the PTSD arising from involvement with drug dealers and violence could be treated as the judge had treated it. The guideline also permitted impairments or disorders to be considered only in a limited way regarding the impact of custody. Character references and positive prison records did not alter the conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): a single judge refused permission to appeal on the papers. The renewed application was refused, and the court held that the sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive.
• Crown Court at Lewes: HHJ S. Mooney sentenced the applicant to 12 years’ imprisonment for the four drug offences, with concurrent sentences on the less serious counts.