Sentence Discount: Early Guilty Plea
| Author | Robert Shiels |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2007.71.2.142 |
| Published date | 01 April 2007 |
| Date | 01 April 2007 |
| Subject Matter | High Court of Justiciary |
Sentence Discount: Early Guilty Plea
Du Plooy v HM Advocate 2003 SLT 1237
Mr Du Plooy arrived at Edinburgh Airport on 23 April 2003, having
travelled by plane from South Africa, and he was found to be in
possession of cannabis. He was charged with being knowingly con-
cerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importing canna-
bis contrary to s. 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act
1979. He pleaded guilty at an accelerated diet on 2 August 2002 and he
was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. He then appealed to the
High Court of Justiciary by note of appeal on the basis, inter alia, that
the sentence was excessive given his early indication of his willingness
to plead guilty. It was said that insufficient allowance had been made for
the guilty plea. His appeal was heard along with three other appeals in
which the same point was argued. All the cases had been selected to give
the appeal court an opportunity to provide guidance as to the basis of
and scope for such an allowance and the form that it might take.
HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEALS,
1. It was not in doubt that whatever allowance, if any, should be
made in respect of a plea of guilty it was a matter for the discretion
of the sentencer (at [7]).
2. In taking into account the stage at which an offender indicated an
intention to plead guilty, the sentencer may make an allowance,
according to the circumstances of the case, for the fact that the
tendering of a plea of guilty is likely to save public money and
court time (its ‘utilitarian value’) and, in general, avoids inconven-
ience to witnesses, or, in certain types of cases, avoids additional
distress by the witnesses being required to give evidence or give
statements to the authorities for that purpose, and to make allow-
ance for the acceptance of guilt involved in the plea of guilty (at
[16]).
3. The ‘utilitarian value’ of the plea and the implication of the
acceptance by the accused of guilt should be taken into considera-
tion in determining the appropriate punishment, but should not
be allowed to detract from the need to protect the public and no
allowance should be made in determining the length of the exten-
sion period of an extended sentence, and likewise where a deter-
minate sentence contains an element designed to protect the
public from reoffending the sentence should not to that extent be
subject to any allowance in respect of the plea of guilty (at [19]).
4. Where the guilty plea is of a tactical nature, the sentencer might
well, in exercise of his or her discretion, make little if any allow-
ance (at [20]).
5. The suggestion that where the evidence against the accused is so
strong that it could be said he could hardly have refused to offer a
142
Sentence Discount: Early Guilty Plea
plea the sentencer should take the view that that lessened the
value of the plea to the criminal justice system cannot be pressed
too far. It should not go the length of treating the accused as if he
had been forced to plead guilty. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial