Regina v Newton: CACD 1982

Where there is a plea of guilty but there remains a conflict between the prosecution and defence as to the facts, the trial judge should approach the task of sentencing in one of three ways: a plea of not guilty can be entered to enable the jury to determine the issue; or the judge himself may hear evidence and come to his own conclusions; or the judge may hear no evidence and listen to the submissions of counsel. If the last of these options is chosen and there is a substantial conflict between the two sides, the version of the defendant must so far as possible be accepted. In the second case, evidence is called before the judge by the prosecution and the defence and the judge makes findings on the critical issues.
If the judge hears no evidence but merely listens to submissions of counsel and there ‘is a substantial conflict between the two sides he must come down on the side of the defendant. The version of the defendant must so far as possible be accepted’.
A hearing may not be required where the defednat’s assertion goes not to contradict the prosecution’s evidence but merely sought to minimise by assertion as to detail, the overall effect.
‘There are three ways in which a judge in these circumstances can approach his difficult task of sentencing. It is in certain circumstances possible to obtain the answer to the problem from a jury.
The second method which could be adopted by the judge in these circumstances is himself to hear evidence on one side and another, and come to his own conclusion acting so to speak as his own jury on the issue which is the root of the problem.
The third possibility in these circumstances is for him to hear no evidence but to listen to the submissions of counsel and then come to his conclusion. But if he does that then, as (the trial judge) himself said in a passage to which reference will be made in moment, where there is a substantial conflict between the two sides, he must come down on the side of the defendant. In other words, where there has been a substantial conflict, the version of the defendant must so far as possible be accepted.’
[1983] 77 Cr App R 13, (1982) 4 Cr App R (S) 388, [1983] Crim LR 198
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Benfield; Regina v Sobers CACD 21-Jul-2003
The defendants appealed life sentences for second serious offences under s109. They had been convicted of robbery.
Held: The offence of robbery existed at the time when the 200 Act was created, and it was inconceivable that the new Act . .
CitedRegina v Neal, Hood CACD 28-Nov-2003
The defendants appealed sentence for having been involved in the large scale importation of cigarettes evading customs duty.
Held: The judge had paid proper attention to Dosanjh. Having regard also to Czyzewski, the sentences were within the . .
CitedRegina v Underwood; Regina v Arobieke; Regina v Khan; Regina v Connors CACD 30-Jul-2004
In each case the appeal arose from difficulties with Newton Hearings, where the defendant had wished to plead guilty but on a different version of the facts from that proposed by the prosecution.
Held: The court restated and emphasised the . .
CitedBradley, Regina v CACD 14-Jan-2005
The defendant complained that his criminal record had been placed before the jury under the Act, even though the proceedings had been begun before the commencement date.
Held: The provisions of the Act were procedural in nature and therefore . .
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 . .
CitedAspect Capital Ltd v Christensen ChD 29-Mar-2010
aspect_christensenChD10
The defendant, a former senior employee had appeared dishonest and been dismissed. A search and seizure order was obtained, and the claimant now said that the defendant was in contempt of it. The parties disputed the extent of his admissions of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 March 2021; Ref: scu.186032