R v Declan Winkless & Anor

Sentencing for corruption involving a prison officer must reflect every material aspect of the criminality, including the danger of identifying an informant, the undermining of prison security and public confidence, and the strong need for deterrence. A concurrent sentence may still be increased to reflect an additional count; concurrency does not permit distinct criminality to be ignored. The assessment is not a strict mathematical exercise. The court should use the appropriate sentence after trial, personal mitigation, guilty-plea reductions and totality as reference points, then stand back and balance seriousness and deterrence against the individual offender’s circumstances. Different roles and mitigation require separate assessments. For a person under 21 when convicted, the sentence must be expressed as detention in a young offender institution.

The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer sentences imposed by the Crown Court at Northampton on 26 January 2026 after guilty pleas by Mr Winkless and Ms Novas. The indictment contained seven counts arising from corruption and related offending involving a serving prisoner and a prison officer.

Mr Winkless received an aggregate sentence of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to his existing sentence. Ms Novas received an aggregate sentence of 3 years’ detention, with concurrent sentences. The reference raised whether either aggregate sentence was unduly lenient and how the disclosure of an informant’s identity, mitigation, guilty pleas and totality should be reflected.

The court granted leave under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The reference was allowed in part.

1. Seriousness and deterrence. Sentencing for corruption by a prison officer had to reflect the undermining of prison discipline, security and public confidence, the risks to prisoners and staff, and the strong deterrent function required by such offending. The court drew on Waddington [2015] EWCA Crim 367, the reasoning in McDade and Reynolds [2010] EWCA Crim 249, and R v Bennett [2019] EWCA Crim 762. The sentence had to reflect the different ways in which the offender had failed in the duty of office.
2. Assessment of undue leniency. The court’s calculations were illustrative rather than strictly mathematical. It considered the least appropriate aggregate sentence after trial, personal mitigation, the guilty-plea reduction and totality, then stood back and balanced the broader seriousness and deterrent need against each offender’s circumstances.
3. Application. Disclosure of the identity of a prison informant was extremely serious because informers might face very serious violence and the disclosure undermined prison safety and security. Mr Winkless’s grooming and corruption of Ms Novas, together with his serious record, materially aggravated his culpability. Ms Novas’s youth, immaturity, vulnerability, troubled background and remorse required substantial mitigation, but did not remove the seriousness of her conduct. The additional criminality represented by Count 2 could not be ignored merely because sentences were concurrent.
4. Orders. For Ms Novas, an appropriate sentence after trial would have been about 6 to 7 years. After mitigation and plea reductions, her 3-year sentence was within the proper range. The reference was dismissed as to her, but the record was corrected so that her sentence was expressed as detention in a young offender institution. For Mr Winkless, the appropriate post-trial sentence was about 7½ to 8 years. After mitigation and plea reduction, the minimum proper sentence was 5 years. The sentence on Count 2 was quashed and a sentence of 5 years concurrent was substituted. His total sentence was therefore 5 years, consecutive to the sentence already being served.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 30 June 2026, the court granted leave for the reference, dismissed it as to Ms Novas, corrected the form of her sentence, and increased Mr Winkless’s total sentence to 5 years consecutive to his existing sentence: [2026] EWCA Crim 904 .
• Crown Court at Northampton: On 26 January 2026, Her Honour Judge Rebecca Crane sentenced Mr Winkless to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment and Ms Novas to 3 years’ detention after guilty pleas.