R v BXF

An appeal against sentence ordinarily reviews the sentence imposed on the material before the sentencing court. It is not a re-sentencing exercise based on fresh mitigation. The sentencing judge is best placed to assess guilty plea credit in a complex multi-defendant case. Confidential assistance to the police may be taken into account in mitigation. That mitigation may be reflected through the factual basis adopted, including by avoiding a Newton hearing and imposing a sentence below that contended for by the prosecution. Family hardship generally carries little weight against serious drug offending and an inevitable substantial prison sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiring to supply Class A cocaine and heroin and received concurrent sentences of nine years and six months' imprisonment. The sentencing judge dealt with a large and complex group of defendants and took account of confidential information concerning assistance given by the appellant to the police.

By leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against sentence. He argued that he should have received 25 per cent rather than 20 per cent credit for his guilty pleas, that insufficient weight had been given to mitigation, and that fresh information concerning a family member's ill-health should be considered. The central issues were the proper scope of sentence appeals and whether the sentence was excessive.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. The appeal against sentence was primarily a review of the sentence imposed on the information before the court below. It was not a re-sentencing exercise based on additional information and submissions. The fresh information concerning a family member's ill-health therefore could not ordinarily be relied upon. In any event, it would have carried very little weight against the seriousness of the offending and the need for a substantial custodial sentence.
2. The sentencing judge had been required to sentence a large number of defendants in a complex prosecution. He was best placed to assess the appropriate reduction for guilty pleas, having regard to the particular circumstances and the practical difficulties caused by the Covid-19 restrictions. He was entitled to adopt a 20 per cent reduction in the appellant's case, and no greater reduction was justified.
3. The appellant's previous convictions for supplying Class A drugs engaged the minimum sentence provisions in section 313 of the Sentencing Code. The minimum applied even if his role and the quantities involved had been materially less.
4. The judge had taken account of all relevant mitigation, including the confidential information considered in accordance with the principles in R v Royle [2023] EWCA Crim 1311. By deciding that a Newton hearing was unnecessary and sentencing on the basis adopted, he had reflected the mitigation. The prosecution's more serious factual basis would have produced a sentence of about 16 years before credit for guilty pleas. Equating the appellant's sentence with that of the co-accused therefore represented a substantial reduction and was not excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 957.
• Sentencing court: The appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of nine years and six months' imprisonment for conspiracy to supply Class A cocaine and heroin.