[2025] EWCA Crim 1257

Counsel's submissions

On behalf of the appellant Ms White submits, first, that the judge should have allowed full credit of one-third for the guilty pleas. She has developed in some detail the submissions which were made in short form in the Note she provided for the sentencing hearing. We are grateful to Ms White also for taking further instructions during the course of the hearing over the short adjournment in order to answer questions the Court put to her, and similarly to Ms Ember-Jade Wong on behalf of the prosecution, as to the sequence of events leading up to the magistrates’ court hearing and thereafter leading up to the entering of the guilty pleas at the Crown Court.

Ms White explains that the appellant had a limited recollection of the events of 9 April, and maintains the submission she made to Judge Everett that it was therefore vital that he and those representing him were able to view the multi-media evidence presentation in order to be able to advise him properly. As we have already indicated that presentation shows CCTV footage from roadside cameras with only fleeting glimpses of the vehicles being driven past the camera.

Ms White explains, as set out in her Sentencing Note, that she had a conference with the appellant on Tuesday 23 July, but as the multi-media presentation had not at that stage been served by the prosecution a further conference was arranged for Friday 26 July, by which time it had been served. At the conference on 26 July the decision was made that the appellant would plead guilty to all four counts. The appellant's unequivocal intention to plead guilty was conveyed to the prosecution on Monday 29 July, several days in advance of the PTPH set for Friday 2 August.

Ms White submits that in these circumstances it would have been unreasonable to expect the appellant to indicate guilty pleas at the magistrates' court, before he or those advising him had seen the multi-media presentation. Without going into all the detail of the chronology which emerged following the Court’s questions, which Ms White and Ms Wong helpfully provided in their oral submissions, what it comes to is this. There had been a late change of solicitors. Those instructing Ms White took over the case from a previous firm and the access of the new firm to the disclosure material referred to in the Better Case Management form was not achieved until the morning of the magistrates' court hearing. It had been uploaded to the Common Platform system on 18 June but because the previous solicitors were still “logged into” that system (if we can put it that way) it was not until 25 June that the electronic version of the material in question was available to the new solicitors. It ran to some 115 pages. The issue of the availability of that material was discussed, it would seem, between the defence solicitor and the Crown Prosecution Service advocate at the magistrates’ court hearing on 25 June.

It is in these circumstances that Ms White submits that special circumstances justified an exceptional course. She repeated in her oral submissions what she had said in her Sentencing Note, that the appellant’s recollection of events was unclear, whilst acknowledging that it was very important that an indication of a guilty plea was given at the earliest stage, hence the action taken after the magistrates' court hearing.

In support of her submissions, Ms White relies on the guidance given by this court in R vPlaku[2021] EWCA Crim 568; [2022] 1 Cr App R(S) 7. The purpose of the Sentencing Council guideline is to encourage those who are going to plead guilty to do so as early in the court proceedings as possible. Ms White submits that this is exactly what the appellant did. She relies in particular on the following observations by Holroyde LJ, giving the judgment of the court, at [27]:

"Bearing in mind the infinite variety of situations which come before the courts, and the consequent undesirability of ever saying “never”, we are prepared to accept that there may be exceptional circumstances in which a court might be persuaded that an unequivocal guilty plea notified to the prosecution and to the court very shortly after the first court appearance should be treated as tantamount to a plea at the first stage of proceedings and should receive full, or almost full, credit. But such circumstances will be rare."

Ms White submits that this is one of those rare cases.

Second, Ms White submits that the judge should have made a greater downward adjustment from his provisional sentence of 18 years to reflect the following guideline factors reducing seriousness, and personal mitigation, which were present in the case, namely: (i) the absence of previous convictions; (ii) the appellant’s good driving record with no endorsements; (iii) his genuine remorse; (iv) his age and/or lack of maturity; (v) the fact the deceased was a close friend of his; (vi) the efforts the appellant made to assist and seek assistance by remaining at the scene; (vii) the appellant's mild learning disability as a result of Noonan’s syndrome (viii) the assessment in the pre-sentence report that he presented a low risk of general offending and a very low likelihood of serious offending.

In the respondent's notice and in her oral submissions Ms Wong submits, on behalf of the Crown, that the judge carefully considered the question of credit for plea and it was open to him to conclude that the appellant could and should have indicated a guilty plea at the magistrates' court. She submits that the multi-media presentation by which Ms White has set great store was never going to assist on the fundamental issue of whether the appellant was driving at excessive speed, ignoring repeated warnings to slow down. At most, the multi-media presentation enabled the appellant to put forward the basis of plea subsequently tendered and accepted but it did not assist on the fundamental issue of whether the appellant had been driving dangerously.

As for the complaint that the judge allowed an insufficient reduction for mitigating features, Miss Wong submits that the judge gave careful consideration to all those factors and the reduction of 4 years to reflect the mitigating factors was sufficient.