British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> McCarthy, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 3107 (14 December 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/3107.html
Cite as: [2011] EWCA Crim 3107
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
The Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
(Lord Judge)
MR JUSTICE SWEENEY
and
MR JUSTICE SINGH
____________________
| R E G I N A | ||
| - v - | ||
| MICHAEL DAVID McCARTHY |
____________________
Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)
165 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone No: 020 7404 1400; Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- This is an appeal against sentence by leave of the single judge.
- On 28 February 2011, in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook, the appellant, who is now aged 41, pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to an offence of burglary.
- The burglary was of a male student's room in a hall of residence. The victim confronted the appellant during the course of the burglary. The appellant nevertheless managed to escape. He tried to take the victim's computer with him. In the process the computer, which had cost £1,200 and which had much of the victim's course work on it, was damaged beyond repair, and so the appellant abandoned it a short distance from the scene of the crime.
- As a result of his previous convictions the appellant qualified for a required minimum sentence of three years' imprisonment under section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. On 28 March 2011 the appellant was sentenced by His Honour Judge Pardoe QC to three years and two months' imprisonment, with a direction that 43 days spent in custody on remand should count towards the service of that sentence. In passing sentence the learned judge identified a number of aggravating features, and made clear that the notional sentence that he would have passed after a trial was one of four years' imprisonment. However, he concluded that full discount for the early guilty plea was limited to 20% because it was a section 111 case. Thus he imposed the sentence to which we have already made reference. Whether the learned judge was right to so limit the discount for the early plea is the sole point in this appeal.
- The learned judge did not have the advantage, as we now have, of being referred to R v Gray [2007] 2 Cr App R(S) 78, in which that was the very point in issue.
- On the appellant's behalf Miss Newall accepts that section 144(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 limits the court on a plea of guilty to reducing the required minimum sentence to a term of not less than 80% of the three year period specified in section 111 of the 2000 Act. She submits, however, that Gray is clear authority for the proposition that when the sentence imposed is longer than the minimum term, a discount greater than 20% may nevertheless be applied, provided that the resultant term does not fall below 80% of the required minimum, that is below approximately two years and five months.
- We agree. Accordingly, given that the learned judge would rightly have applied a full discount of one-third for the early guilty plea had he not felt constrained by the legislation to do otherwise, we propose to give effect to that by quashing the sentence of three years and two months' imprisonment and substituting for it a sentence of two years and eight months' imprisonment. The period of 43 days spent in custody on remand will continue to count towards the sentence. To that limited extent this appeal is allowed.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: I shall ask Mr Justice Sweeney to give the judgment of the court.
MR JUSTICE SWEENEY:
____________________________