Jeggo, R. v

Where sentences for possession of a bladed article and threatening behaviour arise from one and the same incident, they should run concurrently. Consecutive sentences in those circumstances are wrong in principle.

A sentence for possessing a bladed article which is close to the statutory maximum may be manifestly excessive despite relevant previous convictions, particularly where a guilty plea attracts some credit. The totality of the sentence must reflect the proper concurrent treatment of the offences.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Stafford Crown Court to possessing a bladed article and to threatening behaviour, the latter accepted as an alternative to affray. The offences arose when he produced a lock knife while demanding a pedestrian's mobile telephone.

Following an informal Newton hearing, the sentencing judge rejected the appellant's account that he had forgotten a work knife in his pocket. He imposed 20 months' imprisonment for possession of the bladed article and a consecutive four months for threatening behaviour, making 24 months.

The appeal challenged, among other matters, the credit for plea, the Newton hearing, the use of consecutive sentences and the severity of the sentence for the bladed article.

1. Appeal allowed to the extent of sentence. The court rejected the challenges to the conduct of the informal Newton hearing and to the allowance of credit for the guilty plea. The judge was entitled to disbelieve the appellant's account of the knife and to reduce the plea credit accordingly.

2. The judge nevertheless erred in principle by imposing consecutive terms for possession of the bladed article and threatening behaviour. Both offences formed part of one incident. The four-month sentence for threatening behaviour was proper in itself, but it had to run concurrently with the sentence for possession of the knife.

3. The 20-month term for possessing the bladed article was also manifestly excessive. It was too close to the two-year maximum, even allowing for the appellant's relevant previous convictions and the limited credit properly available for his guilty plea. The appropriate sentence after a trial would have been 18 months; allowing limited plea credit, it should have been 15 months.

4. The court quashed the 20-month sentence and substituted 15 months' imprisonment. It quashed the consecutive four-month term and substituted four months' imprisonment concurrent with the 15-month term. The total sentence was therefore reduced from 24 months to 15 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentencing appeal in part. It substituted concurrent sentences producing a total of 15 months' imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Stafford: On 23 August 2007, imposed 20 months' imprisonment for possessing a bladed article and four months' imprisonment for threatening behaviour, consecutively.