R v Brian Hollywood

For guilty plea credit, the relevant question is when the defendant first had a reasonable opportunity to plead to the charge actually before the court. Administrative or computer difficulties do not create an earlier opportunity where the relevant charge was not laid. A full one-third reduction is therefore available where the plea is entered at the first reasonable opportunity. In reviewing whether a sentence is manifestly excessive, the court assesses the offending as a whole, including concurrent counts, aggravating factors, the harmful characteristics of the drug and any reduction required by totality.

After pleading guilty to three counts of possessing the synthetic opioid Nitazene with intent to supply, the appellant was sentenced by the Crown Court at York to 11 years’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge treated him as having a leading role, relied on the quantity and harmful nature of the drug, and allowed 25 per cent credit for his guilty pleas.

The appellant challenged the sentence as manifestly excessive and argued that full credit was due because no Nitazene charge had been before the Magistrates’ Court. The central issues were the appropriate assessment of the sentence and the first reasonable opportunity to plead.

The appeal against sentence was allowed in part.

1. The challenges to the appellant’s leading-role assessment and the categorisation of harm were not pursued. In any event, the sentencing judge had not placed the harm in category 1. He had treated it as between categories 1 and 2, adopted category 2 and increased its 11-year starting point to 12 years. That approach disclosed no error.
2. The 16-year figure before credit was not a sentence for count 3 in isolation. It reflected the offending on all three counts and significant aggravating factors, including previous drug convictions and offending on bail. The judge was also entitled to take account of the particularly harmful aspects of Nitazene. His final one-year reduction for totality meant that the effective pre-credit sentence was 14 years and eight months. That sentence was not manifestly excessive.
3. The judge was wrong to limit credit to 25 per cent. On 24 January 2025 the only Class A charge before the Magistrates’ Court concerned cocaine. The Nitazene charge had been withdrawn in favour of another offence, and the later Nitazene counts, including the most serious count, were not then before the court. The first reasonable opportunity to plead to those charges arose on 3 April 2025, when the final indictment was put to the appellant.
4. Full one-third credit was therefore required. The lead sentence was reduced from 11 years to nine years and nine months. The concurrent six-year sentence was reduced to five years and four months, and the concurrent six-year-nine-month sentence to six years. The total sentence was accordingly nine years and nine months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of substituting reduced terms, as recorded in [2026] EWCA Crim 558.
• Crown Court at York sentenced the appellant on 17 June 2025 to a total of 11 years’ imprisonment after guilty pleas to three Nitazene possession-with-intent-to-supply counts.