“…a hearing at which evidence is heard for the purposes of determining the sentence of a convicted person in accordance with the principles of R v. Newton 77 Cr. App. R.13 CA.”
“11. In the case of R v Newton, the Court described three kinds of hearing which could constitute a trial of the facts: a. The disputed facts could be put before the jury for their decision b. The judge could hear the evidence and then come to a conclusion c. The judge could hear no live evidence but instead listen to submissions from counsel and then come to a conclusion 12. The purpose of a Newton hearing is to establish the facts so that the correct sentence can be imposed. From this can be gleaned the proposition that only cases where a material difference in the sentence will depend on the Judge's findings will justify a Newton hearing. Consequently, it is unusual for the parties to be content to address the judge on the written evidence as the third option above sets out. But it is just as much a Newton hearing as one where live evidence is called.”
“18. The evidence before me supports the conclusion that HHJ Saggerson came to a conclusion on two factual issues not agreed as between prosecution and defence: the importance of the Defendant’s role in the drug distribution network, and the extent to which he played that role under duress. The judge had to come to conclusions on those facts before sentencing, and he did so having heard what appear to have been extensive submissions from counsel for the Crown and for the Defendant.”
“19. It seems to me that HHJ Saggerson, in referring to a “trial of issue” (or more probably, to a “trial of issues”) had in mind a hearing at which evidence would be heard. He did not think that such a hearing was necessary, but it does not follow that there were no factual issues to be determined by him. It seems to me that he simply concluded that he could do so on the basis of the submissions he had already heard and the evidence already before him. There would have been no good reason for him to give consideration to the question of whether, by reference to the relevant (and here, agreed) criteria, a Newton hearing was already taking place. 20. I note that counsel for the Defendant appeared to take the view that a Newton hearing would not take place unless evidence was heard but if that is what he thought, it is inconsistent with what the parties agree is the correct test. 21. For those reasons, the appeal succeeds. My conclusion is that a Newton hearing did take place, in which HHJ Saggerson heard no live evidence but considered submissions from counsel and then come to conclusions on factual matters essential to determining an appropriate sentence. The Appellant should be remunerated accordingly.”
“We write in relation to the hearing listed on5th February 2024 . We no longer intend to dispute the issue of quantum and will not be calling Mr Atha nor do we require PC Render to give evidence in relation to this issue. There may not be a need for a newton hearing as submissions relating to the basis of plea and role will suffice.”
“I agree that the – although it has its own distinct guidelines, it is better regarded as part and parcel of the drugs conspiracy and I intend to take the approach for which Mr Carse and indeed Mr Edwards submit in the first instance, that I should identify counts 1 and two as the lead offences and appropriately weight them and pass a lesser sentence of a concurrent nature in relation to the distinct exploitation charge. Bearing in mind of course the overall principle of totality throughout.”