R v Sebastian Love

Where the prosecution does not accept a defendant’s basis of plea and the defendant elects not to seek a Newton hearing, the sentencing judge must determine the defendant’s role on the available material. The defendant cannot later complain that sentence was imposed otherwise than on the unproved basis of plea. A role assessment within the applicable sentencing guideline range, and proper allowance for youth and mental-health difficulties, will not found an arguable sentence appeal merely because a lesser role had been asserted.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Woolwich to two offences of possession of class A drugs with intent to supply and one offence of possessing a bladed article. He received a total sentence of three years and three months’ detention in a young offenders’ institution.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge. He contended that he should have been sentenced on the lesser role asserted in his basis of plea, should have received greater credit for his guilty plea, and had been sentenced disproportionately to his co-defendant.

The central issue was whether any of those matters disclosed an arguable basis for challenging the sentence.

1. Application for leave to appeal refused. The court agreed entirely with the single judge that no ground of appeal was arguable.

2. The applicant’s basis of plea, which asserted that he had been compelled to sell drugs and had performed a limited role, had not been accepted by the prosecution. The recorder’s notes made that position clear. Although a solicitor’s later letter suggested that sentence would proceed on a lesser-role basis, it could not displace the contemporaneous record.

3. The applicant did not seek a Newton hearing to establish the factual basis on which he wished to be sentenced. It was therefore for the sentencing judge to assess his role. The assessment of a role just below the midpoint of significant role for category 3 street dealing was justified by the facts, and the starting point of four years and three months was not arguably inappropriate.

4. The sentencing judge had made a substantial reduction for the applicant’s youth and mental-health difficulties before applying credit for the guilty plea and totality. The single judge’s conclusions that the plea credit was within the available range and that the co-defendant’s sentence did not establish an arguable disparity were also endorsed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The applicant renewed his application after the single judge had refused leave. The court refused leave in [2024] EWCA Crim 80.
• Crown Court at Woolwich — The applicant pleaded guilty on 26 April 2023 and, on 7 June 2023, was sentenced to three years and three months’ detention in a young offenders’ institution.