Martin, R. v

When considering an appeal against sentence, the court assesses the totality of the consecutive terms. It will not interfere unless the overall sentence is clearly excessive. A persistent record of similar offending, offending while on licence, and the need to protect the public may justify a substantial consecutive sentence. The court may uphold the sentence even where a guilty plea attracts no credit because the evidence leaves no realistic defence.

The applicant pleaded guilty before magistrates to burglary, driving while disqualified, and using a vehicle without insurance. He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under sections 3 and 6 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

He was also in breach of an early-release licence for earlier burglary and handling offences. At Blackfriars Crown Court, the judge activated three months of the licence balance and imposed consecutive terms of three years and six months for burglary and six months for driving while disqualified. The total sentence was four years and three months' imprisonment.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application to appeal against sentence. The issue was whether the six-month consecutive term rendered the total sentence clearly excessive, particularly because it took the aggregate sentence beyond four years.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court was not persuaded that the total sentence of four years and three months was clearly excessive.
2. The relevant question was the totality of the consecutive sentences. Although the burglary term of three years and six months was accepted not to be manifestly excessive, the additional six-month term for driving while disqualified did not make the aggregate sentence excessive merely because it exceeded four years and thereby increased the period actually to be served.
3. The sentencing judge was entitled to impose the consecutive driving sentence without credit for the guilty plea. The applicant knew that he was disqualified and had no defence to that charge. Similarly, the DNA evidence left no defence to the burglary charge.
4. The applicant's repeated convictions for burglary and, especially, driving while disqualified, together with his commission of these offences while on licence, justified the judge's conclusion that public protection required a substantial sentence. The Court of Appeal therefore upheld the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the applicant renewed his application after a single judge had refused leave. The court refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: on 22 January 2004, the applicant received consecutive sentences totalling four years and three months' imprisonment.
• Magistrates' court: on 10 December 2003, the applicant pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under sections 3 and 6 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.