Smith & Anor, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1661 (12 December 2023)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Paul John Smith

Applicant/defendant

Stephen McAllister

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding Smith in a leading role
  2. 2 Whether there was objectionable disparity between Smith and McAllister's sentences
  3. 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