Regina v Dougall: CACD 13 May 2010

The defendant had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to corrupt in having provided inducements for the award of medical supplies contracts to Greece. He appealed against a sentence of twelve months imprisonment, saying that it should have been suspended to accord with an agreement with the Serious Fraud office under the Act, and under which he had assisted the prosecutor.
Held: The scale of the corruption was substantial, leading to real inflation of prices in Greece.
In this jurisdiction a plea agreement or bargain between the prosecution and the defence in which they agree what the sentence should be, or present what is in effect an agreed package for the court’s acquiescence is contrary to principle. Responsibility for the sentencing decision in cases of fraud or corruption is vested exclusively in the sentencing court . . There are no circumstances in which it may be displaced.
The court should be careful not to allow the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Plea Discussions to suggest that white collar crimes are rather more respectable than other forms of crime. White collar crime or commercial crime taking the form of fraud and corruption in particular is crime. And it is not victimless: sometimes identified individuals are victims, and at others, unnamed, unknown individuals in the entire community are victims . . The Guidelines did not envisage a sentencing agreement but a statement allowing the judge to decide the sentence. The 2005 Act did either not suggest any such bargain. The defendant has earned an appropriate reward in the form of a reduced or lesser sentence from that which would otherwise be appropriate.
Are suspended sentences appropriate for such cases? The defendant (and the SFO) suggested that a pragmatic approach was required to secure co-operation from defendants. That was rejected as an attempt to tell the judge how to sentence. ‘In our jurisdiction there is no principle of any legitimate expectation to be enjoyed by the first person to co-operate with an investigating authority, that he (or she) will be the beneficiary of the most favourable sentencing outcome. Such conduct will, of course, normally provide substantial mitigation.’
Nevertheless the points deserved acknowledgement, and ‘where the appropriate sentence for a defendant whose level of criminality, and features of mitigation, combined with a guilty plea, and full co-operation with the authorities investigating a major crime involving fraud or corruption, with all the consequent burdens of complying with his part of the SOCPA agreement, would be 12 months’ imprisonment or less, the argument that the sentence should be suspended is very powerful. This result will normally follow.’ Such was applied here.

Judge LCJ, David Clarke J, Lloyd jones J
[2010] EWCA Crim 1048, [2010] Lloyd’s Rep FC 472, [2010] Crim LR 661
Bailii
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 73, Criminal Law Act 1977, Prevention of Corruption Act 1906
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedRegina v Innospec Limited 26-Mar-2010
(Southwark Crown Court) Thomas LJ said: ‘It is clear, therefore that the SFO cannot enter into agreement under the laws of England and Wales with an offender as to the penalty in respect of the offence charged . . although the sentencing submission . .
CitedPractice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Consolidation) CACD 8-Jul-2002
. .
CitedP, Regina v; Regina v Blackburn CACD 22-Oct-2007
Whilst awaiting trial, P had offered evidence against others on other serious crimes. On conviction, the judge was supplied with a statement explaining his assistance. He now appealed sentence of 17 years imprisonment for assorted serious drugs . .
CitedGoodyear, Karl, Regina v CACD 19-Apr-2005
The defendant complained that he had pleaded guilty to a charge of corruption on the basis of an indication from the judge that he would not receive a custodial sentence. Having pleaded guilty he had then been sentenced to a six months prison . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Constitutional

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.414957