R v Declan Winkless & Anor

His Majesty's Solicitor General applies for leave to refer two sentences which were imposed on the two offenders and which she regards as unduly lenient. We give leave.

The sentences were passed by Her Honour Judge Rebecca Crane in the Crown Court at Northampton on 26 January 2026 after the offenders had pleaded guilty on an earlier occasion. As a result of their guilty pleas, Mr Winkless was entitled to a reduction in his sentence of 25% and Ms Novas was entitled to a reduction of one-third.

The offenders faced an indictment which contained seven counts. With the exception of Count 6, which concerned Mr Winkless only, the offences charged by the other counts were committed jointly, albeit with the offenders taking different roles.

Ms Novas was aged 19 when she pleaded guilty to the offences on the indictment. Consequently, as she was aged under 21 when convicted, her sentences should have been stated to be sentences of ‘detention in a young offender institution’. In the court below her sentences were stated to be sentences of ‘imprisonment’, which was wrong. For the avoidance of doubt, we shall refer to her sentences as being sentences of ‘detention in a young offender institution’ throughout.

In summary the offences and sentences passed were as follows.

Mr Winkless is now aged 31 and was at all material times a serving prisoner at HMP Five Wells. Ms Novas is now 21 and was a serving prison officer at the prison. Between at least early November and the end of December 2024 when she was 18 going on 19, Ms Novas and Mr Winkless engaged in an inappropriate romantic and sexual relationship that formed the basis for Count 1. In the course of that relationship, Ms Novas brought phones and cannabis to the prison for Mr Winkless. In addition to their inappropriate sexual relationship, they contacted each other very frequently by phone. The feature of the relationship that this Reference concentrates on is that Ms Novas identified another prisoner as an informer and gave Mr Winkless his name.

Prior to her deployment, Ms Novas completed a nine-week training course, which included modules addressing corruption, conditioning and bribery.

On 10 September 2024, Mr Winkless was moved on to A Wing, where Ms Novas principally worked.

By 6 November 2024, Mr Winkless and Ms Novas were in direct electronic communication. Ms Novas had provided her personal telephone number to Mr Winkless, who during the indictment period was operating at least four telephone numbers from inside the prison. Provision of her telephone number formed part of Count 1. Messages subsequently recovered showed that their communication had begun before 6 November 2024. The telephone contact between them was extensive. There were about 2,873 contacts in total during the indictment period.

Count 3 reflected contact between them prior to Ms Novas's arrest on 22 December 2024. Count 7 reflected contact which continued after her arrest while she was subject to police bail with conditions not to contact Mr Winkless and not to contact any serving prisoner.

Analysis of their messaging showed the following.

The same day, the G4S media team were provided by a national newspaper with a copy of a video photo showing Ms Novas and Mr Winkless engaging in sexual acts. The videos recorded by Mr Winkless on 3 December 2024 had been further distributed and circulated to the national media.

Ms Novas was arrested that day at the prison. Her telephone was seized from her. The messages with Mr Winkless were found on it. Ms Novas was interviewed and answered all questions "no comment". She was bailed whilst the police investigation continued, with conditions not to contact Mr Winkless and not to have contact with any serving prisoner. Mr Winkless was transferred to HMP Peterborough.

The offenders resumed communication almost immediately. They interacted almost exclusively through telephone calls rather than messages. There were about 400 further contacts. This contact was represented by Count 7.

On 26 December 2024, Ms Novas resigned her position at HMP Five Wells.

On 13 May 2025, Ms Novas was further interviewed. She admitted communicating with Mr Winkless and entering into a sexual relationship with him. Ms Novas said sexual activity had occurred on up to four occasions. Ms Novas denied bringing any items into prison for him.

On 20 May 2025, Mr Winkless was arrested and interviewed. He answered "no comment" to all questions asked.

Both offenders were subsequently charged.

It is plain from the account we have given that Mr Winkless groomed and manipulated Ms Novas, whether or not he had feelings of affection for her. Ms Novas was much younger and was of previous good character but she had had specific training on corruption, conditioning and bribery.

A psychiatric report concluded that:

A pre-sentence report was prepared. Ms Novas told the author, "I know it was wrong, I just didn't think". The author said she displayed a lack of sound decision making. She presented a low risk of reoffending.

A number of character references were submitted on her behalf. We have read them and take them fully into account.

Mr Winkless had 16 sets of convictions for 31 offences. These principally involved offences of dishonesty, violence, threatening behaviour and relating to weapons. They included, in December 2016, possession of a handgun, for which he was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, and in October 2021, conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary and conspiracy to burgle, for which he was sentenced to 11 years and 3 months' imprisonment, which was the sentence he was serving at the time of these offences. For obvious reasons, there was no pre-sentence report in his case. None was necessary then and none is necessary now.

In its Sentencing Note the prosecution identified the revealing of information about the informant as a specific element of harm.

The judge had a statement from Ms Heather McLoughlin, Counter Corruption Manager of HMP Five Wells. She did not focus on the provision of information about the informant as a separate incident but she explained how corruption undermines the Prison Service's ability to break the cycle of reoffending, and fuels violence, debt and the illicit economy within prisons. It compromises public confidence in the prison service and it is a serious breach of trust for a member of staff to engage in corruption or any wrongdoing:

After setting out the factual basis of the offending, the judge first addressed Ms Novas. The judge described the contact between the offenders as "extensive". She accepted that Ms Novas was genuinely remorseful. She was naïve and immature. She was vulnerable to exploitation, given her age and lack of experience. However, she could easily have sought assistance from the prison authorities. Ms Novas failed to consider the potential impact of her actions on the safety of staff or the work of the prison. The judge observed that "even an inexperienced and naïve prison officer would know that prisoners who are suspected of being informants are often victims of very serious violence. Therefore, providing the name of such a person to Mr Winkless was extremely serious."

Turning to Mr Winkless, the judge referred to his previous record. She accepted that he was remorseful. He was older and able to manipulate Ms Novas. The offending occurred over a long period, including after Ms Novas's arrest. The judge considered it to be an aggravating factor that he shared videos of their sexual activities on social media.

The judge determined that both offenders' culpability was "high". She said:

The harm or potential harm was similarly "high". The judge made reference to a statement from Ms McLoughlin and explained that:

The judge then went on to pass the sentences that we have recorded above. She did not give any indication as to the sentences she would have imposed after a trial before reduction for mitigation and guilty pleas, or why she structured the sentences in the way that she did. Mr Winkless' sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to the sentence he was already serving.

A prison report on Mr Winkless records that he is an enhanced prisoner who has a positive relationship with the staff. In his meetings with the writers of the report he has always stated that he wants to become a productive member of society.

A prison report on Ms Novas records that she has demonstrated a strong motivation to engage positively with her sentence plan. Since arriving at HMP Downview, she has maintained a high level of engagement in purposeful activity and currently holds enhanced status. She is currently experiencing heightened anxiety because of the uncertainty about her sentence generated by this Reference. She is assessed as being someone who with continued support, particularly in relation to her mental health, is well placed to maintain her current progress.

In each offender's case, the Solicitor General's core submission is that the sentence passed would have been justifiable and right for the offender's criminal conduct as charged but excluding Count 2. Count 2, however, is said to add an additional element of criminality that should have been reflected either in a consecutive sentence, or if all sentences were to be made concurrent, the sentence on the lead offence should have been increased significantly to reflect the additional criminality involved in Count 2. There was no such adjustment, with the result that the sentences passed were unduly lenient and should be increased by this court.

In the case of Ms Novas, the Solicitor General submits that the judge's notional sentence required a downward adjustment of approximately 20% to reflect her youth, her immaturity and her mitigation. If that were right, then the sentence of 3 years imposed on Ms Novas would have been equivalent to a notional sentence of 5 years and 7 months, before applying the reduction of 20% for personal mitigation and one-third for her guilty pleas. Unfortunately, though the judge listed a number of mitigating factors (to which we will refer below) she did not say and we cannot tell with any certainty what notional sentence the judge had in mind before adjusting downward for mitigation or what downwards adjustment she then made.

In Mr Winkless' case we can be confident that the notional sentence before reduction for plea was in the order of 54 months. Once again however, the judge did not indicate how she reached that notional sentence.

Mr Beeson, who appeared for Mr Winkless in the court below as he has before us, submits that the sentence imposed by the judge was within the range that was reasonably open to her based on relevant sentencing guidelines. The judge correctly identified the aggravating and mitigating factors (e.g. plea, remorse, personal mitigation and totality) taking into account that he is already serving a lengthy prison sentence. Mr Beeson submits that the sentence is not lenient but rather is a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Mr Muir represents Ms Novas before us as he did in the court below. In mitigation he relies upon:

He accepts that the proper categorisation of both harm and culpability is "high", and that if all sentences are to be concurrent, a significant uplift is required to reflect the criminality involved in Count 2. That said, while he accepts that the sentence on Ms Novas was lenient, he does not accept that it was unduly lenient.

We are confident that it is not by pure coincidence that adjusting each offender's sentence for plea (but not mitigation) results in a notional sentence of 54 months or 4½ years. What we do not know is what overall notional sentence the judge had in mind before making any adjustments for mitigation in either case. Nor can we assume that the adjustment for mitigation would have been the same for each offender. To the contrary, it would have been wrong if the judge had made equivalent downward adjustments for each offender as their circumstances and mitigation are clearly different.

We touch first on the overall seriousness of the offending. It is sufficient to refer to two previous decisions of this court.

First, in Waddington [2015] EWCA Crim 367, this court upheld an aggregate sentence of 19 months after pleas of guilty had been entered at the PCMH , comprising 4 months (equivalent to 6 months before reduction for plea) for misconduct in public office, and 15 months (equivalent to 20 months before reduction for plea) for conveying a List B article into prison, where the appellant was aged 45 and of previous good character, the relationship was non-sexual and the List B article was ten phones. The court cited with approval paragraph 5 of the judgment of the court in McDade and Reynolds [2010] EWCA Crim 249, where the court said:

Second, in R v Bennett [2019] EWCA Crim 762, the Court of Appeal considered the case of a female prison officer who had inappropriate telephone and direct sexual contact with four prisoners. B also passed information to inmates about how they could secure cell moves, which cells might be subject to future search, and how, when and where a phone locking system would be in operation. B finally brought and attempted to bring into custody quantities of cannabis which could have been worth £10,000 in prison. William Davis J explained that the judge had adopted a sentence of 9½ years' imprisonment, before reduction of a full third for the appellant's plea. The final sentence of 6 years 6 months' imprisonment was upheld. Williams Davis J explained at paragraph 26:

We turn then to the offenders.

Mr Winkless was a seasoned criminal who was already serving a long sentence for two offences of conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. The history as we have summarised it demonstrates beyond doubt that he instigated the inappropriate behaviour and groomed Ms Novas: see the persistence of his persuading her to bring him cannabis, which she was clearly reluctant to do, and the giving of gifts, both of which we take to be classic signs of grooming. The grooming and corrupting of a serving prison officer is a materially aggravating feature. Her vulnerabilities made her an early target for his actions. He has no significant personal mitigation, though he expressed remorse.

Ms Novas, by contrast, had significant personal mitigation. As the judge identified, she was naïve and immature and genuinely remorseful. The psychiatric report and the PSR evidence a difficult and troubled background, with a history of serious self-harm and substance abuse. Given her age and inexperience, she was vulnerable to being manipulated. That said, we bear in mind at all times the judge's observation that even an inexperienced and naïve prison officer would know that prisoners who are known to be informants are often victims of very serious violence. The judge was undoubtedly right to refer to the passing of the information about the informant as "extremely serious". So the proper balance has to be struck between her youth and other personal information on the one hand and the undoubted seriousness of her conduct as a corrupt prison officer on the other.

In our judgment, the least aggregate sentence that would have been appropriate for Ms Novas after a trial would have been in the region of 6 to 7 years. The greatest reduction that could properly have been given for her age and other personal mitigation would, in our judgment, have been one-third, though some judges would undoubtedly have afforded her less. Starting with a notional sentence of 6 to 7 years before mitigation and plea, and applying one-third for mitigation, would reduce the notional sentence to approximately 48 to 56 months. A further reduction of one-third for her plea would reduce the sentence to approximately 32 to 37 months. If the notional sentence of 6 to 7 years is reduced by 25% for mitigation, it arrives at a notional sentence of approximately 54 to 63 months. A further reduction of one-third for her guilty plea results in a sentence of approximately 36 to 42 months. We recognise that the issue for this court is not a strictly mathematical exercise, but these illustrative calculations do not support the conclusion that the aggregate sentence of 3 years imposed on Ms Novas was unduly lenient.

Turning to Mr Winkless, additional questions of totality arise and it is necessary to bring into account Count 6, possession of phones in prison, in respect of which the judge imposed a sentence of 12 months concurrent.

In our judgment, given the seriously aggravating features of his previous record and his grooming of Ms Novas, the least aggregate sentence that would have been appropriate for Mr Winkless after a trial would have been in the region of 7½ to 8 years. His mitigation could not reasonably justify a reduction of more than 15%. He was then entitled to a further reduction of 25% for his plea.

Adopting the same approach as we adopted with Ms Novas, a notional sentence of 7½ to 8 years reduced by 15% for mitigation would result in a notional sentence of 76 to 82 months. A further reduction of 25% for plea would result in an aggregate sentence of 57 to 62 months (or approximately 5 years). This supports the submission that the sentence passed on Mr Winkless is unduly lenient.

There remains the question of totality because he is already serving a lengthy sentence. However, there is no connection at all between the current offending and the offending for which he was already serving his long sentence.

Standing back, we consider that the least sentence that could properly have been imposed on Mr Winkless was one of 5 years. That is significantly longer than the sentence of 3 years and 4 months imposed by the judge. Taking all the matters to which we have referred into account, we consider that the sentence passed by the judge on Mr Winkless was unduly lenient and that the sentence should have been not less than 5 years.

As we have said, the court is not engaged in a strictly mathematical exercise. We have in addition stood back and looked at the broader picture, balancing the undoubted need to deter this type of offending and the respective situations of the individual offenders. In the result we are not satisfied that the overall sentence imposed on Ms Novas was unduly lenient. It was, in our judgment, within the range of sentences that the judge could properly impose. We therefore dismiss the Reference so far as it applies to her, while directing that the record be corrected so that her sentence is expressed as a period of detention in a young offender institution.

Mr Winkless' position is different. For the reasons we have explained, we quash the sentence on Count 2 in his case and substitute a sentence of 5 years concurrent. His total sentence will therefore be 5 years, but that will run consecutively to the sentence he was already serving.