R v Christopher Maclean & Anor

Under section 101(1)(f) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence may be admitted to correct a false impression where there is sufficient material for the jury to decide, to the criminal standard, that the defendant gave that impression. The statutory gateway does not require the defendant’s evidence to be demonstrably or incontrovertibly false before the issue can be left to the jury.

A late guilty plea may properly attract a limited additional reduction beyond the discount available on the first day of trial. Time served on recall will ordinarily count towards only one sentence. Any reduction to avoid that result is exceptional. Delay since apprehension warrants reduction only where it was unreasonable, not the offender’s fault, and caused detrimental effect.

Two defendants sought renewed permission to appeal after a single judge had refused leave. At Croydon Crown Court, Christopher Maclean had been convicted by a jury of two conspiracies to supply class A drugs. Stephen Miseldine had pleaded guilty to one such conspiracy.

Maclean challenged the admission, during his cross-examination, of a photograph found on his telephone. The prosecution relied on it to correct his evidence that he had not traded in cocaine since 2012. Miseldine challenged his sentence of 14 years and five months. He contended that his guilty plea merited a larger reduction and that credit should be given for time in custody while recalled on an earlier sentence.

The central issues were whether the photograph was properly admitted under section 101(1)(f) and whether either asserted sentencing ground disclosed an arguable error.

1. Both renewed applications for leave to appeal were refused.

2. Maclean’s proposed conviction appeal disclosed no arguable error. Section 101(1)(f) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did not impose the heightened requirements advanced on his behalf. It was sufficient that there was material capable of enabling the jury to decide, to the criminal standard, whether he had created a false impression.

   The trial judge had correctly directed the jury that it could use the photograph only if satisfied to that standard that it showed continued cocaine trading. That approach accorded with Renda [2006] 1 WLR 2948. In the context of the other evidence, the photograph provided sufficient material to leave the issue to the jury.

3. Miseldine’s plea, entered six days before trial, properly received a 15 per cent reduction. A plea entered on the first day of trial would have attracted no more than 10 per cent. The additional five per cent represented ten months’ imprisonment and was a significant difference. The earlier indication that pleas would make a significant difference did not require a 20 per cent reduction.

4. Time served in prison ordinarily counts towards only one sentence. Although the court has a general discretion to do justice, Kerrigan [2015] Cr.App.R (S) 29 and Prenga [2018] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 41 established that allowing credit despite that principle is exceptional. The elapsed period before sentence, though very long, was not sufficiently exceptional to require a reduction.

5. The general sentencing guidance on delay did not assist Miseldine. There was no evidence that the delay had caused him detrimental effect. He therefore had no arguable basis for a further sentence reduction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused Maclean’s renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and Miseldine’s renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, including his application for an extension of time.
• Crown Court at Croydon: Maclean was convicted on 25 July 2023 of two counts of conspiracy to supply class A drugs and sentenced on 29 September 2023 to 18 years’ imprisonment. Miseldine pleaded guilty on 4 February 2022 to one count of conspiracy to supply class A drugs and was sentenced on 29 September 2023 to 14 years and five months’ imprisonment.