Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

BFE v R

[2024] EWCA Crim 1198
A person gave secret information to the police, putting himself and his family in danger. The judge didn't reduce his prison sentence enough to account for this risk. The appeal court agreed that the sentence should be shorter to fairly recognise this danger.

Key Facts

  • The appellant pleaded guilty to an offence and received a custodial sentence.
  • The appellant provided confidential information to the authorities.
  • The appellant applied for anonymity due to safety concerns for himself and his family.
  • The appeal concerned insufficient reduction in sentence to reflect the provision of confidential information.
  • The information's value was not immediately apparent but was deemed potentially useful for future purposes.
  • The appellant faced significant risk to himself and his family due to the information provided.

Legal Principles

Anonymity orders must be 'strictly necessary' in the interests of justice, particularly when Article 2 and 3 rights are at risk.

R v L and N [2017] EWCA Crim 2129; R v Royle and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 1311

When assessing sentence reduction for providing information to authorities, factors to consider include the information's quality, quantity, risk to the informer, assistance provided, and the informer's own criminality.

R v Royle and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 1311

The weight given to information provided is for the sentencing judge, but the Court of Appeal will intervene if there's an error of law or principle.

R v Royle and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 1311

Assistance to authorities should be valued and discounted before credit for a guilty plea; the total credit generally ranges from 50-66%, with greater credit for maximum assistance and greater personal risk.

R v T [2021] EWCA Crim 1474; R v A and B [1999] 1 Cr App R (S) 52; R v Yvan Nshuti [2012] EWCA Crim 1530

Reduction for assistance should be considered before credit for a guilty plea.

Crown's submission

Outcomes

The appeal was allowed.

Insufficient credit was given for the risk assumed by the appellant in providing information, even though its immediate value wasn't clear. The potential future use of the information and the significant risk to the appellant and his family warranted a further discount.

Anonymity order granted.

To protect the appellant and his family from harm.

No pre-sentence report needed.

Confirmed in accordance with section 33 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.