R v Dawid Szczerbacz

A guilty plea entered during a trial is not automatically disqualified from sentence credit. Under the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Sentencing Council guideline, the court must consider the stage of the plea and all the circumstances. A plea during trial may justify a reduction below 10%, potentially down to zero, depending on the benefits achieved and the progress of the trial. Relevant benefits include sparing victims or witnesses from giving evidence and saving public time and resources. A sentencing judge errs by treating lateness alone as an absolute bar. A modest reduction of 5%, or four months, was appropriate on the facts.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Bradford of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and received an extended sentence of 13 years. He had initially denied the offence. After the jury was sworn, but before any evidence was called, he changed his plea to guilty on the second day of the trial. The sentencing judge gave no reduction, considering the plea too late. The appeal concerned whether the judge had erred in principle by treating the timing of the plea as preventing any credit, despite the saving of witness testimony and some trial resources.

Appeal allowed to a limited extent.

1. Section 73 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires the court to take into account the stage at which the offender indicated an intention to plead guilty and all the circumstances. Section 59 requires the court to follow Sentencing Council guidelines unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice.
2. The Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea guideline creates a sliding scale. A plea entered during the trial may attract a reduction of less than 10%, and the reduction may be zero. The fact that the trial has started is not, by itself, an absolute bar.
3. The court applied the guidance in R v Mason [2022] EWCA Crim 1830; R v Ray Carroll [2024] EWCA Crim 779. The sentencing judge must make a fact-sensitive assessment. Relevant considerations include the stage reached, the effect on the victim, whether witnesses were spared giving evidence, and any saving of public time or resources.
4. The sentencing judge was wrong to conclude that the late stage of the plea meant that no reduction could be given. The plea did not reduce the effect of the offence on the victim. However, it avoided evidence from the victim and a witness and produced a small saving in trial resources. The trial had begun, but no evidence had been called, and it was listed for only three days.
5. A modest reduction of approximately 5%, assessed as four months, was appropriate. The extended sentence of 13 years was quashed and replaced with an extended sentence of 12 years and 8 months, comprising 7 years and 8 months' custody and an extended licence period of 5 years.

1. Crown Court at Bradford. On 28 November 2024, the appellant was sentenced to an extended sentence of 13 years for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2025] EWCA Crim 1576, the appeal against sentence was allowed to the limited extent that a four-month reduction was granted and a substituted extended sentence imposed.