Smith & Anor, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1661 (12 December 2023)
The sentencing judge did not err in assessing Smith's role as leading, nor was the sentence excessive or the disparity objectionable. McAllister was not entitled to a full one-third discount as his plea was not unequivocally indicated at the earliest opportunity; a 25% discount was appropriate.
- Citation
- [2023] EWCA Crim 1661
- Parties
- Prosecution: Rex; Applicant/defendant: Paul John Smith; Applicant/defendant: Stephen McAllister
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 12 December 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Sentence
- Outcome
- applications refused
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Drug Offences, Guilty Plea Discount, Role in Offence, Appeal Against Sentence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rex
Prosecution
Paul John Smith
Applicant/defendant
Stephen McAllister
Applicant/defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding Smith in a leading role
- 2 Whether there was objectionable disparity between Smith and McAllister's sentences
- 3 Whether Smith's sentence was excessive
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge did not err in assessing Smith's role as leading, nor was the sentence excessive or the disparity objectionable. McAllister was not entitled to a full one-third discount as his plea was not unequivocally indicated at the earliest opportunity; a 25% discount was appropriate.
Court Disposition
applications refused
Orders
- Application for extension of time by Smith refused
- Permission to appeal sentence by Smith refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment