R v Eugene Donovan [2026] EWCA Crim 772
[1]On 31 January 2025, in the Crown Court at Wolverhampton, the appellant was sentenced to a total term of nine years and six months' imprisonment for a spree of robberies, thefts and other offences.[2]He now appeals against that sentence with the leave of the single judge on the sole basis that an arithmetical error was made in relation to discount for his guilty pleas.The Facts
[3]On 14 May 2024, having pleaded guilty before Wolverhampton Magistrates' Court, the appellant was committed to the Crown Court for sentence, pursuant to section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in respect of the offences in case reference 20SW1017724, as set out below.[4]On 11 October 2024, having pleaded guilty before Wolverhampton Magistrates' Court, the appellant was committed for sentence, pursuant to section 20 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in respect of the offences in case reference 20SW1236124, as set out below.[5]The appellant then pleaded guilty at the Crown Court to the offences in case reference 20BW1771123 and 20SW1013424, as set out below. The pleas were acceptable, and the remaining counts were ordered to lie on the file against him on the usual terms.[6]On 31 January 2025, in the Crown Court at Wolverhampton, the appellant was sentenced as follows: Count / Offence Number Offence Pleaded guilty or convicted Sentence Consecutive or Concurrent Maximum 20SW1236124 1, 2, 3 Theft (contrary to s1(1) & 7 Theft Act 1968) Pleaded Guilty 1 month imprisonment Concurrent 7 years imprisonment 20SW1017724 1 Failure to Comply with Notification Requirements (contrary to s91(1)(a) & (2) Sexual Offences Act 2003) Pleaded Guilty 6 months imprisonment Consecutive 5 years imprisonment 20BW1771123 1 Robbery (contrary to s8(1) Theft Act 1968) Pleaded Guilty 9 years imprisonment (Consecutive to 20SW1017724) Life 2 Unlawful Wounding (contrary to s20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861) Pleaded Guilty 2 years imprisonment Concurrent 5 years imprisonment 3 Having an Article with a Blade or Point (contrary to s139(1) Criminal Justice Act 1988) Pleaded Guilty 6 months imprisonment Concurrent 4 years imprisonment 4 Affray (contrary to s3(1) Public Order Act 1986) Pleaded Guilty 6 months imprisonment Concurrent 3 years imprisonment 20SW1073424 1, 8, 9 Theft (contrary to s1(1) & 7 Theft Act 1968) Pleaded Guilty (to a lesser offence) 6 months imprisonment Concurrent 7 years imprisonment 2, 4, 6, 11 Robbery (contrary to s8(1) Theft Act 1968) Pleaded Guilty 6 years imprisonment Concurrent Life 5, 7 Having an Article with a Blade or Point (contrary to s139(1) Criminal Justice Act 1988) Pleaded Guilty 6 months imprisonment Concurrent 4 years imprisonment Total Sentence: 9 years 6 months imprisonment Statutory Victim Surcharge: £228 Other relevant orders An order was made for the forfeiture/destruction of the seized knife[7]In his sentencing remarks, the judge dealt first with the sentence for breach of the notification requirements and passed a sentence of six months' imprisonment. He then indicated that he was taking the robbery offence on case reference 20BW1771123 as the lead offence and would impose a consecutive sentence on that, to reflect all of the other offending. The judge indicated that the appropriate sentence after trial would be 12 years' imprisonment, and he then indicated that "I will give one third credit, which reduces that sentence to nine years". The resulting total sentence was nine years and six months' imprisonment.The Ground of Appeal
[8]The sole ground of appeal is that the learned judge purported to afford the appellant one third credit, but in fact only afforded one quarter credit.[9]Application was made for an extension of time of 112 days. The single judge gave leave and granted the application for the extension of time sought.[10]The Crown has confirmed in its Respondent's Notice that it agrees that an arithmetical error was made and does not oppose the appeal.Discussion
[11]An ancillary point has been raised in relation to the committal. The Registrar has suggested that the committal for sentence on case reference 20SW1236124, which was made pursuant to section 20 of the Sentencing Act, should have been made pursuant to section 14 of the Sentencing Act.[12]It is agreed that there was a power to commit for sentence and that the committal was lawful. The sentence imposed on that case was within the sentencing powers of the magistrates' court and so no issue arises about whether the Crown Court exceeded its sentencing powers following committal. We need say no more about it.[13]The judge plainly intended to give one third credit, but made an arithmetical error by reducing the term of 12 years' imprisonment for the lead robbery offence to nine years. That error was not spotted by anybody at the time.[14]The sentence which the judge must have intended for the lead robbery offence was eight years' imprisonment. The sentence was passed in error and should be corrected.Conclusion
[15]We allow the appeal and quash the sentence on the narrow ground above. The sentence for the robbery on case 20BW1771123 is eight years' imprisonment. The remaining terms and ancillary orders remain unchanged.[16]The result is a total term of eight years and six months' imprisonment. ______________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________