Sentencing guidelines - Basis of Plea & Newton Hearing

4 results

20 June 2025

King v Clive Weir

The NICOA [1] stressed the importance of plain and simple language in sentencing decisions at paras [34] and [35], [2] reiterated the principles governing ‘Newton’ hearings at paras [17] – [23] and [3] outlined the importance of monetary figures put forward by the prosecution having a solid and evidential foundation capable of discharging the prosecution onus of proving the relevant amount beyond reasonable doubt at paras [32] and [33].

Appeal against a three year DCS (split equally between custody and licence) – cultivation of cannabis – converting criminal property – using criminal property for the purchase of fuel – NICOA held the sentencing judge failed to adopt any of three optional courses available with regards to the disputed financial benefit (set out at para [23]) or to provide a reasoned ruling or explanation on this issue – the “Newton error” did not result in a manifestly excessive sentence – sentence reaffirmed – appeal dismissed

[2025] NICA 38 McCloskey LJ

10 November 2023

R v Laurence Creaney

The NICOA provided guidance in respect of basis of pleas and Newton hearings at paras [44] – [55].

Renewed application for leave to appeal against 3 year prison sentence – arson – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether judge erred in declining to accept the appellant’s main mitigation point that he committed the offences under severe pressure and coercion from drugs gang lord and murderer – whether breach of article 2 ECHR – co-accused mitigation – whether the judge wrongly distinguished appellant’s sentencing from that of co-accused – whether sentence should have taken the form of a non-custodial disposal – application refused – sentence reaffirmed

[2023] NICA 75 McCloskey LJ

24 February 2023

King v Qing Wen Lin, Long Quang Lin Lin Zheng, Zhu Lin & Yang Wu Chen

Renewed application for leave to appeal sentence – money laundering operation – Proceeds of Crime Act 2022 – whether sentences manifestly excessive – applications to receive new material granted – principle of mercy applied to two mothers - Article 8 ECHR – the offender’s personal circumstances - judge erred in confining exceptional circumstances to the offending itself - disparity in sentencing – deterrent sentences – culpability – the aggravating factors contained highly prejudicial assertions not agreed or proven – prosecution portrayal of the roles and knowledge attributed to the appellants was inconsistent - roles/rankings which the judge attributed to certain appellants were neither agreed nor proven - leave granted – appeals allowed - sentences reduced.

Guidance in relation to the following sentencing principles can be found at paragraphs [86] – [110] - mercy in sentencing, Article 8 ECHR to include reference to R v Petherick [2013] 1 WLR 1102, exceptional circumstances, the offender’s personal circumstances, disparity in sentencing, deterrent sentences and culpability.

[2023] NICA 11 McCloskey LJ

26 October 2022

King v Filippo Sangermano

actual bodily harm – stabbing with nail scissors – whether sentence manifestly excessive and/or wrong – whether level of culpability unsupported by basis of plea – finding of dangerous – whether VOPO necessary – terms of extended custodial sentence licence – right to a fair trial – burden of proof on prosecution in sentencing process – compilation of pre-sentence reports – duties owed by counsel to sentencing court – emphasis on the importance of the accuracy of the basis of plea document – court adopted the principles in R v Cairns [2013] EWCA Crim 467 - appeal allowed.

[2022] NICA 62 McCloskey LJ