R v Henry Smith

A guilty plea entered during trial may properly attract no reduction where the principal witness has already attended court and endured the prospect of giving evidence. A sentencing judge is not required to structure individual sentences in a particular way when applying totality, provided the overall sentence is just and proportionate.

There is no impermissible double counting merely because previous violence increases culpability for rape and repeated violence also forms part of a separate course of controlling or coercive behaviour. The sentencing significance of the violence may differ between the distinct offences.

The appellant appealed, with leave, against an aggregate sentence of 14 years and 10 months’ imprisonment imposed at Leicester Crown Court after guilty pleas to rape and controlling or coercive behaviour, entered on the second day of trial, and earlier guilty pleas to burglary and possession of a class B drug.

The sentences for rape and controlling or coercive behaviour were consecutive. The burglary sentence was concurrent, and a suspended sentence was activated consecutively. The appeal alleged that no credit had been given for the late pleas, that violence had been counted twice in assessing the two principal offences, and that the overall sentence offended totality.

1. Appeal dismissed. The aggregate sentence of 14 years and 10 months’ imprisonment was not excessive, let alone manifestly excessive.

2. The judge made no error of principle in allowing no credit for the guilty pleas to rape and controlling or coercive behaviour. The pleas were entered on the second day of trial, after the complainant’s recorded evidence had been played and after she had attended court expecting to be cross-examined. The guilty-plea guideline permitted a reduction to be reduced to zero in those circumstances. The judge’s later reference to an advantage arising from the prosecution offering no evidence on other allegations did not undermine the independent and sufficient reasons for refusing credit.

3. There was no double counting. Previous violence could properly elevate culpability for the rape. The repeated and prolonged violence forming the course of controlling or coercive behaviour was a separate feature of that offence. The two uses of violence were not necessarily equivalent.

4. The judge gave adequate reasons for consecutive sentences for rape and controlling or coercive behaviour because they were separate and distinct in kind and nature. Totality did not require a reduction in the coercive-control sentence or any particular sentencing structure. The concurrent burglary sentence showed that the judge had applied totality to achieve a just and proportionate overall term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence in [2024] EWCA Crim 30.
• Crown Court at Leicester: on 15 August 2023, imposed an aggregate sentence of 14 years and 10 months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas.