R v Alia Abdullahi

Where an offender did not plead guilty at the first opportunity, a full one-third reduction is not available. However, where fitness to plead is properly raised and the offender pleads guilty as soon as fitness is confirmed, a 25 per cent reduction may be appropriate. A sentencing judge who adopts an incorrect level of credit errs in principle, and the appellate court may quash and replace the affected sentence while leaving an unobjectionable concurrent sentence undisturbed.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook to robbery and assaulting an emergency worker. The robbery involved the theft of cash and a wallet from a 94-year-old man during a prolonged struggle, in which the appellant bit him. She later kicked a police officer in custody.

On 13 September 2024, the judge imposed 30 months’ imprisonment for robbery and one month concurrently for the assault. The robbery sentence reflected a starting point of three years and a reduction of about 16.7 per cent for the guilty plea. The appellant appealed against sentence with leave of the single judge, contending that the credit for plea was wrong.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the 30-month sentence for robbery and substituted a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment. The concurrent one-month sentence for assaulting an emergency worker was left unchanged.

2. The three-year starting point for the robbery was justified. The offence was an appalling, unprovoked and cowardly attack on an elderly and vulnerable victim. The appeal therefore concerned credit for the guilty plea, rather than the proper starting point for the robbery.

3. The appellant was not entitled to a one-third reduction because she could have pleaded guilty at the first opportunity in the Magistrates’ Court but did not do so. The court nevertheless accepted that the sentencing judge had erred in principle by allowing only about 16.7 per cent credit.

4. Her legal advisers had raised fitness to plead, and she pleaded guilty as soon as it was clear that she was fit to do so. In those circumstances, a 25 per cent reduction from the 36-month starting point was appropriate. The resulting sentence for robbery was therefore 27 months. The court considered R v Nolan [2022] EWCA Crim 726 but held that it did not justify the 33 per cent reduction sought.

5. A six-week sentence was appropriate for the assault. The concurrent one-month sentence imposed, allowing for comparable credit, was unobjectionable and remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 27 months’ imprisonment for the robbery sentence.

• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 13 September 2024, imposed 30 months’ imprisonment for robbery and one month concurrently for assaulting an emergency worker.