(or) refused a sentence reduction for a guilty plea (or) would hear nothing of a plea bargain (or) wouldn't allow my client to cop a plea", etc.

As you mention in your explanation, this part of the text refers to the process of "conformidad," which in Spanish criminal procedure is similar to the US concept of reaching a negotiated plea ("plea bargain" or "plea agreement"). If the "fiscal" offers or agrees to a plea reduction (which this one is refusing to do) and the accused takes it (called "conformarse"), then the judge will enter a judgment based on the plea bargain ("sentencia de conformidad"). I know you need UK English and may have to check whether this terminology is appropriate for a UK audience, although "plea bargain" would probably by understood in the UK (10,700 google hits for "plea bargain" on ".uk" websites). "Plea reduction" may be appropriate too.


Plea- Bargaining in the UK

Plea-bargaining is originally an Anglo-American system of bypassing juries to reduce workload of the courts although, today it is probably most actively used in the US. A fair number of other common law jurisdictions have also incorporated plea-bargaining. Courts in the UK have insisted on being the primary actor in the determination of the punishment. It was formally introduced in England by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, 1996.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 has laid down the powers of the judge as regards sentence reduction in case of guilty pleas, expressly, in section 144-

144
Reduction in sentences for guilty pleas

(1) In determining what sentence to pass on an offender who has pleaded guilty to an offence in proceedings before that or another court, a court must take into account-

(a) the stage in the proceedings for the offence at which the offender indicated his intention to plead guilty, and

(b) the circumstances in which this indication was given.

(2) In the case of an offence the sentence for which falls to be imposed under subsection (2) of section 110 or 111 of the Sentencing Act, nothing in that subsection prevents the court, after taking into account any matter referred to in subsection (1) of this section, from imposing any sentence which is not less than 80 per cent of that specified in that subsection.

This is a direct reproduction of the section 152 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act, 2000, whereby the judge has the discretion to reduce sentence if a plea of guilt is made early enough in the trial.[1]

In R. v. Turner (F.R.)[2], it was held that any discussion must be between the judge and the counsels on both sides. If counsel is instructed by a solicitor who is in court, he too should be allowed to attend the discussion. This freedom of access is important because there may be matters calling for communication or discussion of such a nature that the advocate cannot, in his client's interest, mention them in open court, e.g. the advocate, by way of mitigation, may wish to tell the judge that the accused has not long to live because he is suffering maybe from cancer, of which he is and should remain ignorant. Again, the advocates on both sides may wish to discuss with the judge whether it would be proper, in a particular case, for the prosecution to accept a plea to a lesser offence. It is imperative that, so far as possible, justice must be administered in open court.

In Att.-Gen.'s Reference (No. 44 of 2000) (R. v. Peverett)[3], it was stated that it was only in wholly exceptional circumstances that counsel should have recourse to the judge in his room for the purpose of discussing pleas or sentence; an example of such circumstances was that of the defendant who was unaware that he was dying. In response to the court’s comments, the Attorney-General issued specific guidelines to prosecution authorities as regards acceptance of pleas and discussion about sentencing with the judge. The Attorney-General has clarified in the section entitled “Acceptance of Pleas” that:

* Hearing except in the most exceptional circumstances, should be conducted in public. This includes the acceptance of pleas by the prosecution and sentencing.
* The Code for Crown Prosecutors sets out the circumstances in which pleas to a reduced number of charges, or less serious charges, can be accepted. Where this is done, the prosecution should be prepared to explain their reasons in open court.
* The Court of Appeal has said on many occasions that justice should be transparent; only in the most exceptional circumstances should plea and sentence be discussed in chambers. Where there is such a discussion, the prosecution advocate should at the outset, if necessary, remind the judge of the principle that an independent record must always be kept of such discussions. The prosecution advocate should make a full note of such an event, recording all decisions and comments. This note should be made available to the prosecuting authority.
http://www.indlaw.com/legalfocus/focusdetails.aspx?ID=77




--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2008-12-24 12:20:07 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Looking at how "sentence reduction" is used on UK legal websites, perhaps two of the suggestions above could be reworded:

she (the "fiscal") refused to offer a plea reduction (or) refused to offer a sentence reduction for a guilty plea