R v Goodyear (Karl)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Judge |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWCA Crim 888 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 200404097 A0 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 20 April 2005 |
[2005] EWCA Crim 888
Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
Lord Justice Judge
Deputy Chief Justice of England and Wales
Mr Justice Treacy
Mr Justice Wakerley and
Mr Justice Calvert-smith
Case No: 200404097 A0
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CROWN COURT AT DONCASTER
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JACK
Mr Nigel Godsmark QC for the Prosecution
Mr Martin Sharpe for the Appellant
Lord Woolf, Chief Justice:
This is the judgment of the Court prepared by the Deputy Chief Justice, Lord Justice Judge.
On first analysis this is an unremarkable appeal against sentence by Karl Goodyear following his plea of guilty to an offence of corruption on 19th April 2004 at the Crown Court at Doncaster before His Honour Judge Jack.
In reality, the appeal raises important questions about the continuing applicability of the practice promulgated in R v Turner [1970] 2 QB 321, as underlined and applied in subsequent cases, which, save in the most exceptional circumstances, effectively prohibited the judge from giving any indication of sentence in advance of a guilty plea by the defendant. Accordingly, following the procedure adopted in Attorney General's Reference (No. 1 of 2004) 1 WLR 2111 and R v Simpson [2004] QB 118, a five-judge court, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, was convened to consider whether what we shall compendiously summarise as the Turner rule of practice may now properly be modified, and if so, to what extent.
The Proceedings
Before the trial began, a meeting took place in the judge's chambers between the judge and counsel for the appellant and counsel for two co-defendants, and counsel for the prosecution. The fourth defendant, Stones, had already pleaded guilty. The discussion culminated in the judge saying to counsel for the appellant "I do take the view, by contra distinction to the case of Mr Stones who was a public servant and may be in a rather different position, but I do take the view that this is not a custody case".
Counsel returned to court. Goodyear was re-arraigned: so were the remaining two defendants. In the result all three defendants pleaded guilty. Sentence was adjourned for the preparation of pre-sentence reports.
By 24th June, a pre-sentence report had been prepared for the appellant. It concluded that neither a custodial sentence nor a community rehabilitation order would be appropriate. A financial penalty was recommended. No reports for Daniels and Green were available. When the issue was raised before the judge he then indicated that he was considering suspended sentences on these three defendants. After an adjournment for instructions to be taken, counsel for both Daniels and Green indicated that their clients were content to be sentenced without the benefit of pre-sentence reports. Counsel for the appellant submitted that given the earlier indication by the judge on 19th April, it would be wrong in principle for a suspended sentence of imprisonment to be imposed.
The antecedent histories showed that the appellant was forty years old, without relevant previous convictions. Stones was sixty-three. Apart from the conviction for driving with excess alcohol which led to his earlier disqualification, he was a man of good character. Daniels was sixty-two and Green sixty-six. Both were of previous good character.
The appellant was sentenced to six months' imprisonment suspended for two years, and ordered to pay a fine of £1,000 within twelve months. Stones was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, suspended for two years. Green and Daniels were sentenced to three months' imprisonment, also suspended for two years.
The Facts
These can be briefly summarised. In the mid-1990s Doncaster Metropolitan Council turned its attention to the renovation and improvement of an area known as the Stainforth Estate. Some of the property on this estate was Council-owned, and some privately-owned, usually former council houses purchased under the well-known "Right to Buy" provisions. The privately-owned houses were eligible for grant aid.
Stones was responsible for allocating work between various contractors, who were already appointed to undertake grant-aided work on private houses. He was also responsible for checking that the work was done to an appropriate standard, and for authorising payment. He was aptly described by counsel for the prosecution opening the facts before the judge, as someone who was "in a position to smile upon the building contractors, or to make life difficult for them … he was in a position to be awkward, and he could, from time to time, in fact, be awkward."
Daniels and Green were partners in a firm working on the estate. Their earnings from this work kept their business afloat between 1992 and 1998. They received just over £750,000 by way of grant aid.
The appellant was a sub-contractor, responsible for external rendering, the only sub-contractor authorised to undertake this kind of work. Between 1992 and 1998 he was paid just over £600,000 for the work done by him on private houses and overseen by Stones.
The relationship between Green and Daniels and Stones, and the appellant and Stones was corrupt. The appellant paid Stones £3200, and carried out rendering work to Stones' home, without payment. This work was valued at about £2500. Daniels and Green also worked at Stones' home, making a staircase and working on kitchen work tops. The Crown valued this work at £3000, the defence contending that it was worth much less. In addition, at a time when Stones was disqualified from driving, Daniels and Green arranged unpaid transport for Stones from the Stainforth Estate to his home.
The intention was clear, and again summarised by counsel for the Crown, "This work was done and these payments made to Mr Stones effectively to keep him sweet, to stay in with him, in the hope that he would smile upon them, and would show less of a tendency to be difficult with them.".
It was accepted by the prosecution that neither the appellant, nor Green nor Daniels, obtained any additional work or contracts as a result of these corrupt transactions. The purpose was to encourage Stones to look kindly on them when exercising his responsibilities for the administration of the contracts. The objective was summarised by one defendant in his interview: "It was all about 'sweetening' Stonesey".
The four defendants were arrested. When interviewed, Stones said that he could not remember receiving any cheque from the appellant, and claimed that he had paid for the rendering work done by him. In later interviews he made no comment about payments from him. The appellant on the other hand accepted that he had made payments to Stones, claiming that it was part of an arrangement described by him as "business consultancy". The payments were given for business advice and some quantity surveying work, and the rendering was set off against consultancy fees.
Daniels and Green accepted that they had made the stairs for Stones and helped with the kitchen work tops as a favour. They never asked Stones for payment, and they did the work in order to remain in his favour.
Grounds of Appeal
The essential ground of appeal arises from the fact that the judge did not abide by his indication, given on 19th April, that a custodial sentence would not be imposed on Goodyear. It is submitted that in the light of his indication, at that date at any rate, he could not have been satisfied that the offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence could be justified (s 79(2)(a) the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000). Moreover, a suspended sentence was inappropriate because there was nothing exceptional about the circumstances (s 118(4)(a) and (b) of the 2000 Act.) Between 19th April and 24th June, the date when the appellant was sentenced, no additional or further factors relevant to the sentencing decision had emerged, save and except that the pre-sentence report supported the original view expressed by the judge that a custodial sentence was inappropriate. Accordingly a sentence of imprisonment, even if suspended, should not have been passed, and in the light of the indication given by the judge, was wrong in principle.
Proceedings on 19th April
A complete record was rightly made of the discussion in the judge's chambers on 19th April. As counsel for the Crown put it, the meeting did not take place at his behest. As Stones had already pleaded guilty, and was awaiting sentence, his counsel was not present.
In the discussion which took place counsel for Goodyear explained various background matters, and eventually said:
"Mr Goodyear is very eager not to have a trial, and is very eager to avoid, if it were possible, the possibility of a custodial sentence, and on my behalf I wonder whether your Honour would be in a position to give any indication?"
The judge responded:
"Well, certainly not at this stage, because I haven't considered the question of sentence at this point … and in any event I don't think I would be in a position to give an indication. … I am sorry for that."
Counsel for Daniels then addressed the judge. His observations ended:
"… I will make submissions … that the custody threshold would not be passed, and I simply wondered whether your Honour is in a position to assist in that regard, both I anticipate on behalf of myself and my learned friend … [counsel for Green]."
The judge replied:
"… as things stand and on the prosecution case at it is put, it seems to me that I cannot assist, although I can obviously say that your...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Abdul Rahman and Bilal Mohammed
...Terrorism Act 2006. 11 The case had been listed for trial. On 20 November 2007 HH Goldstone QC was invited, pursuant to the principles in R v Goodyear 2005 1 WLR 2532, to give an indication of the maximum sentence he would pass if the appellant pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 3 and to an add......
-
R v Connor Martin
...would pass as a sentence given alternative findings in the Newton hearing. To do so offends against the spirit and principles set out in R v Goodyear [2005] EWCA Crim. 888. It may be thought to place undue pressure on a defendant not to contest the prosecution's case. Because of the way in ......
-
R v Newman (Shane)
...proceeded to sentence, and the judge passed the extended sentence to which we have already referred. 15 The attractions of Goodyear [2005] 1 WLR 2532, summarised in Archbold para 5-79b and following, and its practical importance, are manifest. Goodyear indications will only serve their purp......
-
R v Transco Plc
...having regard to the material facts. He further complains that at a hearing in accordance with the procedure approved by this court in R v Goodyear [2005] EWCA Crim 888, [2005] Crim LR 659, the judge had indicated that the fine would be less than £1 million and that he should have regarded ......
-
Business Crime 2017: British Virgin Islands
...defendant. In such circumstances, a Goodyear direction may be sought (a procedure derived from the English case of R v Goodyear (Karl) [2005] EWCA Crim 888, wherein a defendant may request an indication of the likely maximum sentence should he plead guilty). ELEMENTS OF A CORPORATE SENTENCE......
-
ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
...QB 272. 95 [2008] QB 770. 96 [2014] 1 WLR 3964. 97 R v Hunter [2015] 1 WLR 5367; R v Kahar [2016] 1 WLR 3156. See also R v Goodyear [2005] 1 WLR 2532; R v James [2006] QB 588. 98 One recent development saw Mrs Justice Prakash appointed as Singapore's first female Judge of Appeal. In the UK,......
-
Four Threats to the Presumption of Innocence
...Guilty Plea (2004), giving guidance tocourts on when to give the maximum reduction and when to give a lesser reduction; and RvGoodyear [2005] 3 All ER 117, introducing a procedure whereby a defendant can ask the judge for anadvance indication of sentence based on a plea of ‘constraint’ to e......
-
Money Laundering and Globalization
...crime where the handling of criminal property may sometimes beeasier to prove than the underlying criminality.53 Goodyear [2005] EWCA Crim 888; Yoonus [2004] EWCA Crim 1734; [2005] 1CAR (S) 46; Dekson [2004] EWCA Crim 3205; Attorney General's Reference No.48 of 2006 (Andrew Farrow) [2006] E......
-
Do the Defence Matter?
...by the prosecution of the criminal record attrial.18THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 123DO THE DEFENCE MATTER?14 Ibid.15 [2005] EWCA Crim 888; [2005] 2 Cr App R 20 (p. 281).16 See at e%20pdf/CrimpR_Part3-Plea-and-Case-Management-Hearing-PCMH-form.pdf>, accessed 4 February2010.1......