R v Anthony Campbell

A guilty plea reduction must be calculated accurately against the sentence that would otherwise be imposed. Where the applicable guideline permits a reduction of 25 per cent, the sentencing court must give the full mathematical effect of that reduction unless a different approach is justified by law. An appellate court may quash and substitute a sentence where the error is purely arithmetical, while leaving the sentencing judge’s underlying assessment undisturbed.

On 27 October 2023, the Crown Court at Sheffield sentenced the appellant for conspiracies involving the supply of Class B drugs into prison and the conveyance of prohibited articles. The judge imposed 11 years’ imprisonment for the drug-supply conspiracy, four years for conveying lock-knives, and one year for conveying mobile phones and chargers, with the sentences concurrent. The appeal was limited to the drug-supply sentence.

The judge assessed 14 years as the appropriate sentence before credit for the guilty plea, then stated that a 25 per cent reduction applied but imposed 11 years. The central issue was whether that calculation was lawful.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The court quashed the sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply Class B drugs and substituted 10 years and six months.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to regard 14 years as the appropriate sentence before credit for the guilty plea. The conspiracy operated for three years in three prisons, the appellant had played a leading role, and his previous convictions were aggravating features. The court also accepted the serious effects of drug supply on prison discipline, exploitation, intimidation, violence, prisoner health and staff pressures.
3. Under Sentencing Act 2020, section 59, a court must follow any relevant Sentencing Council guideline unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so. The applicable guilty-plea guideline provided for a maximum reduction of one quarter where the plea was entered after the first stage of proceedings.
4. The judge had correctly identified the sentence before discount as 14 years and correctly applied the guilty-plea guideline in principle. However, a 25 per cent reduction from 14 years produces 10 years and six months, not 11 years. The appellant was therefore entitled to have the sentence calculated in accordance with law.
5. The substituted sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to the sentence the appellant was already serving for murder.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal against sentence to the limited extent that the 11-year sentence was quashed and replaced by a sentence of 10 years and six months.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: on 27 October 2023 imposed the challenged 11-year sentence for conspiracy to supply Class B drugs, following an assessment of 14 years before a guilty-plea reduction.