Onfroy, R. v

An appellate court should reduce a sentence which is manifestly excessive when measured against the gravity and pattern of offending, including proper credit for an early guilty plea. A sentence that would equate to a plainly excessive post-trial term cannot stand, whether the error arose from an excessive starting point or insufficient plea credit.

Where consecutive sentences are justified, the court may preserve that structure while substituting terms that produce a proportionate total. A recalled prisoner may properly be required to serve the unexpired recalled term before the substituted sentence begins.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to two burglaries and one attempted burglary. He also asked for eight burglaries and two attempted burglaries to be taken into consideration. The offences included breaking into homes to obtain car keys and stealing vehicles.

At Derby Crown Court on 14 December 2006, the appellant received consecutive terms totalling six years’ imprisonment. He was also required first to serve 453 days remaining from an earlier sentence for robbery.

He appealed on the ground that the overall custodial term was too long. The central issue was whether the six-year sentence, after proper allowance for the guilty plea, was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The court held that the total sentence of six years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

2. The appellant’s offending, previous record and high risk of reoffending justified a substantial custodial sentence. However, he had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. A six-year sentence represented the equivalent of a nine-year sentence after trial. Such a post-trial sentence would plainly have been manifestly excessive for the offences before the court.

3. The excess necessarily resulted either from an unduly high sentencing starting point or inadequate credit for the guilty plea. The appropriate total for the indicted offences and those committed for sentence was four years’ imprisonment.

4. The sentencing judge had correctly directed that the appellant serve the unexpired 453-day recalled term before beginning the new sentence. The court therefore quashed the two three-year burglary sentences and substituted two-year sentences for each burglary. Those sentences remained consecutive, producing a total of four years’ imprisonment to be served after the recall period.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted consecutive sentences totalling four years’ imprisonment.

• Derby Crown Court: On 14 December 2006, imposed consecutive sentences totalling six years’ imprisonment and directed that 453 days of recall be served first.