R v AIB

Sentencing an offender who has provided information or assistance requires a fact-specific assessment of all relevant circumstances. The reduction is pragmatic and is available whether the information concerns the offence of conviction or other criminal activity. A guilty plea is not an essential precondition. Relevant matters may include the quality and duration of the assistance, its results, risks to the informer and family, the informer’s own criminality, previous credit and any payment. Financial reward should generally have little or no effect on the reduction because reward and sentence reduction are complementary incentives. The assessment must recognise reliable and substantial assistance and the risks undertaken.

The appellant had been convicted or had pleaded guilty to serious offences and received a total sentence of eight years’ imprisonment. His conviction appeal had been dismissed. He appealed against sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to material concerning his former role as a covert human intelligence source. The material, described as the “text”, was not before the sentencing judge in the present form. The central issue was whether it demonstrated assistance and risk which should have affected the sentence.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court held that the sentencing judge had erred in deciding that the text did not assist the appellant. The text confirmed a significant period of accurate and reliable information, substantial financial reward on 36 occasions, the absence of any previous sentencing text, no evidence given in a Crown court concerning the information, and an acknowledged credible risk to life.
2. Applicable approach. The court treated R v Royle & ors [2023] EWCA Crim 1311 as authoritative guidance on sentencing informers. The rationale for a reduction is pragmatic. It applies whether the information concerns the offence of conviction or other criminal activity. A guilty plea is not an essential precondition.
3. The appropriate reduction requires a fact-specific assessment of all relevant circumstances. Relevant factors include the quality and quantity of the information; its duration and results; the degree of assistance, including willingness to give evidence; risks to the informer and family; the informer’s own criminality and candour; whether credit has already been received; and any payment.
4. Financial reward and sentence reduction are complementary incentives. Consistently with T at [8], payment should generally play only a small, if any, part in the sentencing decision unless exceptionally generous.
5. Applying that approach, the court considered that a reduction of about 40% was appropriate. The resulting total sentence was 60 months. To that extent, the appeal against sentence succeeded.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellant’s conviction appeal had previously been dismissed. The sentence appeal was allowed to the extent that the total sentence was reduced to 60 months.