R v Nicholas Lynn

Credit for a guilty plea entered after the first opportunity is a matter for the sentencing judge, guided by the stage at which the plea is entered and the applicable sentencing guideline. The maximum reduction is not available where the plea is delayed, and the reduction decreases further as trial approaches. Different credit given to co-defendants, particularly by another judge, does not by itself create an arguable ground of appeal. The relevant question is whether the allowance in the applicant’s own case complied with the guideline and was reasonable in the circumstances.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the R v Nicholas Lynn proceedings to conspiracies to supply cocaine and cannabis, and to perverting the course of justice. The Crown Court at Kingston sentenced him on 19 April 2024 to concurrent terms of 15 years and 3 months, five years and 18 months respectively.

After refusal by the Single Judge, he renewed his application for a 12-day extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence. He argued that he should have received 20 per cent credit for his guilty pleas, as had two co-defendants, rather than the 15 per cent awarded to him. The central issue was whether that difference disclosed an arguable error in the sentencing decision.

1. The renewal application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. There was no arguable ground of appeal.
2. Credit for a guilty plea is discretionary. Where the plea is not entered at the first opportunity, the stage at which it is entered determines the reduction available under the applicable sentencing guideline. The guideline allows a maximum reduction of one-third for a plea at the first opportunity, decreasing to 10 per cent for a plea entered on the first day of trial.
3. The applicant and his brother had initially indicated that the case would be contested and entered their pleas shortly before the fixed trial date. In those circumstances, the applicant was not entitled to the maximum reduction. A 15 per cent allowance was entirely reasonable and compliant with the guideline.
4. The fact that co-defendants received 20 per cent credit did not, without more, establish an arguable appeal. Some variation is unsurprising where the sentencing decisions were made by different judges. A proper comparison would require close examination of all relevant factors in the respective cases, including matters which might have operated more favourably for the applicant.
5. The decisive question was whether the allowance made in the applicant’s own case complied with the applicable guideline. Since it did, the applications had to be refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 7 August 2025, refused the renewed application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 1152.
• Crown Court at Kingston: On 19 April 2024, sentenced the applicant to concurrent terms of 15 years and 3 months, five years and 18 months for the three offences.