R v Jonathan Cassidy & Anor

A sentencing court must assess guilty-plea credit by reference to the stage and progress of the proceedings. The reduction is case-specific. There is no automatic discount for guilty pleas in EncroChat cases or other drug conspiracies. A plea entered after prolonged litigation, substantive defences and the effective commencement of trial may properly attract less than the guideline maximum. Covid-related prison conditions may be taken into account, but they do not justify an automatic discount. Their significance will usually diminish in a lengthy sentence unless there is cogent evidence of a disproportionately harsh impact. On appeal, intervention requires an error of principle, a plainly unreasonable assessment or a sentence that is manifestly excessive.

Jonathan Cassidy appealed against sentences imposed in the Crown Court at Manchester for conspiracies to import and supply Class A drugs and to deal with criminal property. Nasar Ahmed renewed an application for leave to appeal on grounds concerning disparity, previous convictions, mitigation and Covid-related prison conditions. He was also granted leave to argue that his guilty-plea credit was insufficient.

Both defendants received concurrent sentences, the longest being 21 years and 9 months. The sentencing judge allowed four months for mitigation and prison conditions and applied 15% credit for the pleas, although the defendants sought 25%. The central issues were whether the Covid-related reduction was inadequate and whether the guilty pleas should have attracted a larger discount.

1. Cassidy’s appeal was dismissed. Ahmed’s renewed application for leave on the disparity and related grounds was refused. His appeal on the guilty-plea ground was dismissed.
2. The court agreed with the Single Judge that alleged disparity with Atkinson did not disclose an arguable ground. Sentencing is highly fact-dependent, and the sentencing judge was well placed to calibrate sentences in this large conspiracy. The Court of Appeal should rarely interfere unless the judge proceeded on an obviously mistaken factual basis, made an error of principle or formed a view that no reasonable judge could have formed. R v Williams [2019] EWCA Crim 279 was applied.
3. Covid-related prison conditions are a relevant sentencing consideration. They do not create an automatic Covid discount. In lengthy sentences, the pandemic will usually carry little weight unless there is clear, cogent and persuasive evidence of a disproportionately harsh impact. The four-month reduction was within the proper range and was not insufficient. The approach in R v Manning (AG’s reference) [2020] EWCA Crim 592, as clarified by the general principle stated in R v Whittington [2020] EWCA Crim 1560, was followed.
4. The 15% guilty-plea reduction was lawful and justified. The proceedings had continued for years, the appellants had maintained substantive defences, legal issues had been litigated and for practical purposes the trial had begun. The Sentencing Guideline required the court to have regard to the plea’s timing relative to the progress of the case and trial. A 25% reduction would have been excessive, while 15% was within the available range and exceeded the guideline’s stated first-day-of-trial maximum of one-tenth.
5. The EncroChat evidence did not bring the pleas within exception F1. It was not necessary to await an admissibility ruling in order to understand whether the defendants were guilty in fact and law, and it was reasonable to expect earlier pleas. The sentences were neither reached after an error of principle nor manifestly excessive.

• Crown Court at Manchester: On 21 March 2024 HHJ Dean KC sentenced each defendant to 21 years and 9 months’ imprisonment on the principal count, with concurrent terms on the other counts.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Cassidy’s appeal was dismissed. Ahmed’s renewed application for leave on the original grounds was refused; his appeal on the additional guilty-plea ground was dismissed.