GOODYEAR 20 YEARS ON
Martin Sharpe
Twenty years ago, I took the landmark case of R v Goodyear [2005] EWCA 888 to the Court of Appeal. In a remote lecture, open to all practitioners, on 16.07.25 at 5:30pm, I’m going to be exploring its effects on the criminal justice system & this short article is intended to be taster for that event.
Goodyear allowed judges to give indications as to maximum sentence on a guilty plea, so long as this was a request initiated by the defendant. Once given this sentence indication was binding on that judge, but maybe time limited. Any subsequent plea(s) must be voluntary & free from pressure.
From the early 80’s, the Court of Appeal increasingly laid down sentencing guidelines in the form of judgements. This led to the establishment of the Sentencing Guidelines Council in the CJA 2003, who took over that responsibility from the Court of Appeal & later became the Sentencing Council.
Goodyear can be seen as part of this movement to a more rules based & consistent system – the ever-expanding universe of the Criminal Procedure Rules, anyone! Judges, now have more structured frameworks for assessing likely sentences, which in turn makes indications more predictable and transparent.
Leading cases:
R. v Green (Cain) [2006] EWCA Crim 3173, judge in giving a Goodyear indication said that he would pass a sentence “in the region of four years” but reserved the right to increase the sentence upon receiving future reports on the degree of apparent risk to the public. Held, that although the judge had used the words “in the region of four years”, the exchange with counsel could not be read as conveying anything other than that the sentence would not exceed that period.
R. v Ablewhite (Jonathan Charles) [2007] EWCA Crim 832, a judge had been correct to impose a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment on three defendants for conspiracy to blackmail, following their prolonged campaign of fear and intimidation against the owners of a farm that bred animals for medical research, despite the fact that he had provided a direction indicating that a term of 12 years would be the maximum sentence they would receive if they were to enter pleas of guilty.
R. v McDonald (Michael Francis) [2007] EWCA Crim 1117, the imposition of an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection was unjust where the judge had previously made a Goodyear indication that he would impose a determinate sentence.
R. v Seddon (Andrew) [2007] EWCA Crim 3022, if the statutory conditions for imposing an indefinite or extended sentence for public protection for a specified offence pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Pt 12 c.5 were met, a sentencing judge was under a statutory obligation to impose such a sentence, notwithstanding any previous contrary judicial indication given in accordance with the procedure established in Goodyear.
R. v Patel (Sophia) [2009] EWCA Crim 67, a judge giving an indication of sentence upon a guilty plea pursuant to Goodyear, could properly take a notional post-trial sentence as a starting point. That notional sentence was not, however, binding on the judge if the defendant did not plead guilty and was convicted.
R. v Newman (Shane) [2010] EWCA Crim 1566, a judge was entitled to impose a six-year extended sentence on an offender following his guilty plea, despite previously indicating, in accordance with the procedure in Goodyear, that a three-year determinate sentence would be imposed. Reports read after the indication had been given suggested that it would be in the public interest to impose the extended sentence, and the defendant had not suffered any prejudice as he had been given the opportunity to change his plea.
R. v Nightingale (Danny Harold) [2013] EWCA Crim 405, even though an army sergeant had pleaded guilty to offences, his convictions were quashed as the judge advocate had given an uninvited sentence indication at his military trial which had created inappropriate pressure on him and had narrowed his freedom to choose whether to plead guilty or not guilty.
R. v Fawthrop (Gemma) [2017] EWCA Crim 1500, a 12-month community order was unduly lenient. However, the Court of Appeal did not overturn the sentence, as the offender had pleaded guilty after an unsolicited comment from the judge that she would not face imprisonment if she changed her plea.
R. v Swailes (Peter) [2022] EWCA Crim 540, a sentence of nine months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, was not unduly lenient. Although the judge’s assessments regarding culpability and harm were generous to the offender and the resultant sentence was lenient, the assessments were properly open to the judge. The court emphasised the duty of advocates to ensure that defendants understood that any sentence imposed following a Goodyear indication remained subject to the Attorney General’s entitlement to refer a sentence as unduly lenient.
R. v Bradley (Grant) [2025] EWCA Crim 234, sentence not changed where offender, who was of previous good character and had complied with the terms of the suspended sentence order, had attacked a man in the street on the mistaken basis that he had made sexual advances towards his teenaged step-daughter. However, the judge had given an indication regarding the imposition of a suspended sentence on a guilty plea and the possibility of a subsequent reference to the Court of Appeal had not been raised.