R v A (Informer: Reduction of Sentence) ; R v B (Same)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 April 1998 |
| Date | 23 April 1998 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Before Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Turner and Mr Justice Penry-Davey
Criminal sentencing - defendant providing more valuable information than anticipated - sentence reduce by Court of Appeal
Where a defendant pleaded guilty and gave valuable information, with the reasonable expectation that he would give valuable help in future, his assistance was reflected by the judge by a discount of the sentence. But where the value of the information, quantitatively or qualitatively, had not been fully appreciated when sentence was passed, or that supplied after sentence greatly exceeded the reasonable expectation of the sentencing judge, it was appropriate for the Court of Appeal to review the sentence and reduce it to reflect the true value of the assistance.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held when allowing appeals by A and B from sentences of 12 and 14 years respectively imposed by Judge Rooke, QC, at Canterbury Crown Court following their pleas of guilty to offences contrary to section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management
Act 1979 in relation to the importation of a class A controlled drug, namely a large quantity of ecstasy tablets.
Miss Isabelle Gillard for A and B; Sir Allan Green, QC, as amicus curiae; Mr David P Fisher, QC and Mr Mark Bryant-Heron for the prosecution.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, giving the judgment of the court, said that the main point taken by A and B on their appeal against sentence was that insufficient credit had been given for the help they had extended to the authorities, particularly since conviction.
The relevant principles were:
1 Sentences were discounted to reflect pleas of guilty. A defendant who indicated his intention so to plead at an early stage would ordinarily earn a greater discount that a defendant who pleaded guilty at a late stage in the proceedings.
2 Where defendants cooperated with the prosecuting authorities, not only by so pleading, but by testifying or expressing willingness to testify, or making a witness statement incriminating a co-defendant, they would ordinarily earn an enhanced discount of their sentences, particularly where such conduct led to the co-defendant's conviction or a plea of guilty.
3 It had been the long standing practice of the courts to recognise by a further discount of sentence the help given and expected...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Rogers; R v Tapecrown Ltd; R v Beaman
...THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES S.23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 2 As was made clear in the judgment of Lord Bingham CJ in R v A&B (Informer: reduction of sentence) [1999] 1 Cr App R (S) 52 at 56, the Court of Appeal Criminal Division is, in relation to sentencing, a court of review. Its functio......
-
R v Mark Roberts and Others
...on appeal than he was dealt with by the court below." 19 It is well established that this court is a court of review. In R v A&B [1999] 1 Cr App R (S) 52, Lord Bingham CJ made this clear at page 56: "the Court of Appeal Criminal Division is a court of review; its function is to review sente......
-
R v Alex Orr
... ... On 17th January 2017 he was sentenced by the same judge to a 10-year extended sentence, pursuant to section 226A of the ... reflected a starting point of nine years' custody before reduction for the guilty plea ... 51 We are satisfied ... ...
-
Secretary For Justice v Wong Chi Fung
...of its own, so it ordinarily relies entirely, or almost entirely, on material before the sentencing court: see R v A and B [1999] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 52 per Bingham LCJ (as he then was) at p.56 (sub-para.(4)). It has been repeatedly recognised that an appellate court does not have the advant......
-
Out of Time Appeals
...Justice emphasised that the Courtof Appeal is only a ‘court of review’, affirming the view of Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in RvA&B[1999] 1 Cr App R (S) 52 (at 56) that the Court of Appeal’s function is not to ‘conduct a sentencingexercise of its own from the beginning’. Indeed, in the prese......