R v Colin Hall

Where sentencing remarks clearly disclose an intended guilty plea reduction, an accidental mathematical slip which gives a smaller reduction may be corrected on appeal. The court should give effect to the sentencing judge’s stated intention. It would be unfair for the offender to receive a sentence which falls short of that intended reduction.

The appellant pleaded guilty to seven historical offences of indecent assault contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The Crown Court at Birmingham imposed a total sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment after allowing limited credit for late guilty pleas.

He appealed against sentence, arguing that the judge’s calculation had failed to give effect to the announced reduction. The issue was whether an accidental mathematical error had produced a sentence inconsistent with the judge’s stated intention.

The court allowed the appeal and reduced the total sentence to 15 years’ imprisonment.

1. The appeal was confined to the calculation of credit for the guilty pleas. The grounds concerning starting points and personal mitigation were no longer pursued. The sentencing judge had carefully followed the Sentencing Council’s approach to historical sexual offences.
2. The sentencing remarks showed that the judge had assessed the notional sentence after trial at 18 years, deducted one year for general mitigation and age, and thereby reached a notional sentence of 17 years. She intended to apply a reduction of a little more than 10 per cent for the late guilty pleas.
3. The deduction of one year from 17 years was less than 10 per cent. It was therefore an accidental mathematical slip which failed to give effect to the judge’s stated intention. The court held that it would be unfair to leave the appellant with a sentence which did not reflect that intention.
4. The court applied the approach illustrated by R v Paul, Dunn and Roberts [2019] EWCA Crim 476, where a simple mathematical error or slip had resulted in a successful sentence appeal.
5. The consecutive eight-year sentences on counts 3 and 7 were quashed. A sentence of seven years and six months was substituted on each count, to be served consecutively to each other and concurrently with the sentences on the other counts. The resulting total sentence was 15 years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2024] EWCA Crim 703, the appeal against sentence was allowed and the total sentence reduced to 15 years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Birmingham — On 2 April 2024, the appellant was sentenced to a total of 16 years’ imprisonment.