Key Facts
- •Two anonymous applicants (BHR and BMV) sought sentence reductions after providing information to law enforcement post-sentencing.
- •No formal statutory agreements were in place.
- •Sentencing judges were unaware of the post-sentencing assistance.
- •The appeals raised the issue of whether the Court of Appeal has the power to reduce sentences based on post-sentencing assistance.
Legal Principles
A reduction in sentence for assisting law enforcement is generally only available if the assistance is provided before sentencing.
Case law summary in Royle [2023] EWCA Crim 1311
The Court of Appeal's function is to review sentences based on information before the sentencing judge, not to conduct a new sentencing exercise.
A and B [1999] 1 Cr App R (S) 52
Exceptions exist where post-sentence assistance significantly exceeds what was considered at sentencing, or where pre-sentence assistance was unknown to the sentencing judge.
A and B [1999] 1 Cr App R (S) 52; H, D and Chaudhury [2009] EWCA Crim 2485
The statutory procedure under section 388 of the Sentencing Code provides a route for post-sentence assistance review, but it's not available for all offences (e.g., murder after trial).
Sentencing Act 2020, sections 387-391
Outcomes
The applications for sentence reduction were refused.
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed the general rule that post-sentence assistance does not justify sentence reduction via the ‘text procedure’. The applicants' cases did not fall under the narrow exceptions to this rule. The statutory procedure (section 388) was not followed.
Applications for extensions of time to appeal were refused.
The appeals could not succeed based on the established legal principles.