R v Khaine Henry-Godwin

Full one-third credit for a guilty plea is not automatic where the plea is first indicated after the initial hearing. Exception F1 applies only where particular circumstances significantly reduced the defendant’s ability to understand what was alleged, or made it unreasonable to expect an earlier plea. The exception does not extend to delay undertaken merely to assess the strength of the prosecution evidence. A defendant who knows the charges and knows of involvement in them should ordinarily indicate an unequivocal guilty plea at the first hearing. The exception is confined to narrow bands, although each case remains fact-sensitive.

The appellant appealed, by leave, against a total sentence of 5 years 9 months’ imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court at Manchester for three class A drug offences. The sentencing judge allowed a 25% reduction for guilty pleas rather than the full one-third. The appellant argued that the first real opportunity to plead guilty was at the postponed plea and trial preparation hearing, because the initial prosecution material did not explain the case against him. The central issue was whether Exception F1 of the guilty plea guideline applied.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed the appeal and upheld the 25% reduction. The sentencing judge had not erred in refusing to apply the full one-third discount.

1. The appellant knew at his first appearance before the magistrates that he faced charges of being concerned in the supply of class A drugs and possession of class A drugs with intent to supply. He also knew of his involvement in those offences. He therefore had sufficient understanding to indicate unequivocal guilty pleas at that stage.
2. Exception F1 is confined to narrow bands. It applies where particular circumstances significantly reduce the defendant’s ability to understand what is alleged or make it unreasonable to expect an earlier indication of guilt. The court must distinguish a case in which further information, assistance or advice is necessary to determine factual or legal guilt from one in which the defendant merely delays to assess the strength of the prosecution evidence and the prospects of conviction or acquittal.
3. The court applied the approach in Plaku and others [2021] EWCA 568. Fairness to defendants who plead guilty at the first stage requires the exception to remain narrowly confined, although the assessment remains fact-sensitive.
4. The absence of a detailed case against the appellant in the initial papers did not prevent him from understanding the charges or deciding whether he was guilty of them. He did not require further information, assistance or advice before indicating his pleas. The sentencing judge was therefore entitled to award 25% credit, and no other error in sentence was identified.

• Crown Court at Manchester: On 7 July 2025, His Honour Judge Potter imposed a total sentence of 5 years 9 months’ imprisonment and allowed a 25% reduction for guilty pleas.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The 25% reduction was upheld.