R v Alomgir Kabir

For the maximum reduction under the guilty plea guideline, the relevant time is when an unequivocal intention to plead guilty is indicated, normally at the first hearing when a plea is sought and recorded. A defendant need not await full disclosure of the prosecution case or an agreed basis of plea. An equivocal indication, such as expressing optimism or saying that a guilty plea is likely, is insufficient. The guideline’s limited exceptions should not be extended. In sentencing controlling or coercive behaviour, the guideline starting point is a precise term, but the court may move within the category range before applying mitigation and plea credit. The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant appealed against a 27-month custodial sentence imposed at Winchester Crown Court on 9 August 2024. He had pleaded guilty at a Crown Court preparation hearing to one count of controlling or coercive behaviour on a basis, while counts of alternative offending were ultimately not proceeded with.

The sentencing judge applied a 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea. The defendant argued that he was entitled to the normal maximum reduction of one-third because his intention to plead guilty had been indicated earlier, and sought renewed permission to challenge the provisional sentence of four years. The central issues were whether an unequivocal guilty plea had been indicated at the first stage of proceedings and whether the provisional sentence was excessive.

1. Provisional sentence. The renewed challenge to the sentence was rejected. Sentencing for controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family setting is fact specific, so comparisons with other cases lacking a point of principle are of limited value. In the applicable category, the guideline starting point was 2½ years. That was a precise term of art. The court was entitled to adjust upwards within the category range before applying mitigating features and guilty plea credit. The prolonged control, repeated violence, threats, and abuse while the victim was pregnant and breastfeeding justified a provisional sentence of four years. Leave was refused on this ground.
2. Guilty plea guideline. Section 73 of the Sentencing Code requires consideration of the stage at which the intention to plead guilty was indicated and the circumstances of the indication. The guideline draws a deliberate distinction between a first-stage indication, normally attracting a maximum reduction of one-third, and a later indication, to which a sliding scale applies. The guidance in R v Plaku & Others [2021] EWCA Crim 568 confirmed that the relevant time is when the plea is indicated, not when it is formally entered, and that the exceptions are limited and fact specific.
3. Meaning of first-stage indication. For an either-way offence, a maximum first-stage reduction ordinarily requires a guilty plea or an unequivocal indication of such a plea at the first hearing when the matter is addressed. The blank sending sheet, absent evidence of an error in recording, showed that no such indication had been given. The procedure under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 supported that conclusion.
4. Full disclosure of the prosecution evidence, a complete transcript, or an agreed basis of plea is not a prerequisite to indicating guilt. A guilty plea admits the offence charged, not necessarily every fact relied upon by the prosecution. R v Dale [2022] EWCA Crim 207 showed that a conditional plea dependent on acceptance of a basis is not unequivocal. R v Whitty [2022] EWCA Crim 1100 confirmed that a firm and unambiguous indication is sufficient without a formal tender of the plea.
5. The later correspondence and attendance notes were equivocal. Expressions of optimism and that a guilty plea was likely did not amount to an unequivocal indication. The case did not fall within the guideline’s limited exceptions. The 25 per cent reduction was therefore appropriate and the appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In R v Alomgir Kabir [2025] EWCA Crim 411, the appeal against sentence was dismissed. Leave was refused on the challenge to the provisional sentence.
• Crown Court at Winchester — On 9 August 2024, HHJ Durran KC imposed 27 months’ imprisonment after applying a 25 per cent guilty plea reduction. Counts 2 and 3 were later disposed of by not guilty verdicts.
• Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court — On 5 February 2024, the defendant was sent for trial on three either-way charges. No plea indication was recorded on the sending sheet.