R v Bilal Mabchour

A challenge to the percentage reduction for a guilty plea is immaterial where subsequent adjustments for totality produced the lowest sentence the judge considered just and proportionate, and a higher plea reduction would not have altered that final sentence. Whether exceptional circumstances justified the higher reduction can then be left unresolved.

A defendant seeking the exceptional one-third reduction after failing formally to indicate a guilty plea at the first stage bears the burden of establishing the exception. Substantial delay following correct advice against appealing may require a very powerful case on the merits to justify extending time.

Under section 227 of the Sentencing Act 2020, an adult defendant convicted while under 21 should receive detention in a Young Offender Institution rather than imprisonment, notwithstanding having turned 21 before sentence.

The applicant pleaded guilty at a plea and trial preparation hearing to robbery, two fraud offences and handling stolen goods. Before those pleas, he had received an aggregate sentence of six years and three months’ detention in a Young Offender Institution for separate drug, robbery and related offences.

HHJ Wilkin subsequently sentenced him for the further offences to an aggregate term of two years and three months, consecutive to the existing sentence. The judge allowed 25 per cent credit for the guilty pleas and then made substantial reductions for totality. Although the applicant had turned 21 before sentencing, he had been convicted while under 21.

The applicant sought leave to appeal and a 94-day extension of time. The single judge referred the guilty-plea credit ground to the full court. The applicant contended that he should receive one-third credit because he had lacked an opportunity to indicate his intended pleas in the magistrates’ court. The evidence about that hearing was inconclusive.

1. Applications for leave to appeal and an extension of time refused. The dispute about guilty-plea credit was academic or immaterial because it would not have affected the final sentence. The sentence was also not manifestly excessive ([34]–[37]).

2. The applicant had made no formal indication of plea at the first hearing. He therefore lacked entitlement to a one-third reduction under paragraph D1 of the guilty-plea guideline and bore the burden of establishing the exception in paragraph F1. The evidence suggested that he wished to plead guilty, but did not establish clearly why no indication had been given. The court left unresolved whether particular circumstances made it unreasonable to expect an earlier indication ([31]–[34]).

3. A defendant charged with an indictable-only offence cannot enter a plea in the magistrates’ court, but will normally be asked to indicate the intended Crown Court plea. An unequivocal indication of a guilty plea, followed by that plea at the first Crown Court appearance, attracts one-third credit: Plaku [2021] 4 WLR 82. Parties should complete the Better Case Management form before or at the hearing so that the defendant’s position is clear: Yasin [2019] EWCA Crim 1729 ([33]).

4. The sentencing judge had reduced the aggregate sentence for the further offences by another year after allowing 25 per cent plea credit. He sought the lowest sentence reflecting the seriousness of the whole offending. There was no reason to suppose that allowing one-third credit at the earlier stage would have produced a lower final sentence. The court did not accept that the judge would consequently have made a greater adjustment for totality ([34]).

5. The applicant attributed the delay to advice against appealing, difficulty obtaining representation and ignorance of the appeal procedure and time limit. The advice was correct. In those circumstances, extending time would have required a very powerful case on the merits, which was absent ([37]).

6. As the applicant had been convicted while under 21, section 227 of the Sentencing Act 2020 required detention in a Young Offender Institution rather than imprisonment. The Crown Court record was directed to be amended accordingly ([38]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 1283 , refused leave to appeal against sentence and a 94-day extension of time. Directed amendment of the Crown Court record to substitute detention in a Young Offender Institution for imprisonment.
• Single judge: Referred the guilty-plea credit ground to the full court and refused leave on the other grounds. Those other grounds were not renewed.
• Crown Court: Following guilty pleas at Isleworth Crown Court on 24 September 2024, HHJ Wilkin sentenced the applicant on 13 December 2024 to an aggregate term of two years and three months, consecutive to an earlier aggregate sentence of six years and three months’ detention in a Young Offender Institution.