CS The defendants were each prosecuted for conspiracy to rob. The robberies were well planned involving a gang of men, sometimes as many as four armed with sawn off shotguns, stolen vehicles and balaclavas for disguise. Many members of the public were frightened and spoke of the difficulties in putting the experience behind them. Threats to kill were made and firearms were discharged. Some injuries were sustained, mercifully not serious. They now appealed against their sentences, saying that the sentences were too long, and that, having pleaded guilty, the judge should either have sentenced them on the basis pleaded, or given them opportunity to bring appropriate evidence.
Held: The starting point was correct for very serious offences where the only mitigation was the plea. There had been a trial of co-defendants, and the judge was entitled to draw upon the evidence given. The factual basis of a plea accepted by the prosecution must be made clear to judge. In Anderson and Taberer, the factual basis had been agreed in writing and accepted by the judge. ‘[W]e emphasise how important it is for a basis of plea, particularly in these difficult conspiracy cases, to be drafted with great care. Care should be taken by counsel and the court to ensure that all are ad idem. If that can best be achieved by amendment of the indictment, that should happen.’ This was particularly so in cases of conspiracy, because of the variability of such cases.
Judges:
Roch Buckley Hale LJJ
Citations:
Times 10-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Crim 2868
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Beswick CACD 10-Oct-1995
A Judge can refuse to accept an unjustified agreement between the prosecution and defence as to the facts which form the basis on which the defendant is to be sentenced. The court gave general guidance on the basis of sentence after a guilty plea. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.86050