R v Callum Parker

Following a guilty plea, an appeal against sentence is not a means to challenge the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence or the absence of representation at the plea hearing. A sentencing court can give weight to ill health only where it is established by evidence or other material before it. Where the judge has correctly identified the applicable guideline, selected the proper category and starting point, and given the full one-third credit for a guilty plea, a short custodial sentence will not be disturbed merely because the offender disagrees with it.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Lewes to breach of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The order barred him from remaining with a female who had indicated that she did not wish to be in his company.

He was sentenced on 5 February 2025 to eight months’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge placed the offence in Category B2 of the applicable guideline, adopted a starting point of one year’s custody, and allowed full credit for the guilty plea.

After the single judge refused permission and declined to extend time, the applicant renewed his applications. He relied on lack of representation at plea, alleged insufficiency of evidence, inadequate credit for plea, and ill health.

1. The renewed applications were refused. The court refused both the 14-day extension of time and leave to appeal against the eight-month sentence.
2. The applicant’s complaints about lack of representation when entering the guilty plea and the adequacy of the prosecution evidence could not found an appeal against sentence. He had pleaded guilty, and sentence fell to be imposed on the basis of what he admitted.
3. The assertion that ill health had not received sufficient weight disclosed no arguable error. There was no evidence of ill health, and a sentencing judge cannot give mitigating weight to a matter which is neither proved nor apparent from the material before the court.
4. The complaint about credit for plea was also untenable. The judge had given the full one-third credit. She had identified the correct sentencing guideline, selected the proper category and starting point, and made no upward adjustment for the applicant’s extensive offending history. The sentence was therefore unimpeachable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence refused in [2025] EWCA Crim 728.
• Crown Court at Lewes: following a guilty plea to breach of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, the applicant was sentenced on 5 February 2025 to eight months’ imprisonment.