H, R v

Where an extended sentence is justified, consecutive extended sentences are lawful but should be imposed with great caution. A court should use concurrent terms, adjusted to reflect overall criminality, where that is possible. Consecutive terms may nevertheless be appropriate where the offending requires them. The resulting custodial term must remain proportionate. In particular, the sentencing court must give proper weight to a young offender’s age and avoid an aggregate term that is too long, while retaining any appropriate extension period under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The appellant, aged 17 at the time of the appeal, was sentenced at Inner London Crown Court for three robberies, including an attempted robbery. The judge treated him as a dangerous offender and imposed an 11-year extended sentence under section 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, comprising seven years’ custody and a four-year extension period.

The appeal challenged the length of the custodial terms. The Court of Appeal also considered whether the use of consecutive extended sentences was appropriate. The offences involved serious violence, a threat involving a knife, offending while on bail, and a high assessed risk of future offending.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The Court upheld the decision that an extended sentence under section 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was appropriate. It also held that consecutive extended sentences were not inappropriate on the facts.

2. The Court applied the guidance in ‘C’ & Ors [2007] EWCA Crim 680. Consecutive sentences within the extended-sentence regimes are lawful, but sentencing judges should avoid them where possible and instead adjust concurrent terms to reflect the total criminality. The appellate court will ordinarily interfere only where the result is manifestly excessive or creates real administrative difficulties.

3. The appellant’s repeated and serious robberies, committed in part while on bail, together with his previous offending and high risk of future offending, justified a substantial sentence and a consecutive structure. The three-and-a-half-year term for the robbery on indictment 0756 was appropriate.

4. However, the consecutive terms for the offences on indictment 0501 gave insufficient weight to the appellant’s youth and made the overall custodial term too long. Those terms were quashed and replaced by concurrent terms of 18 months on each count, consecutive to the sentence on indictment 0756. The custodial term was therefore reduced from seven to five years. The four-year extension period remained, producing a total extended sentence of nine years. Sixty-four days on remand were to count towards sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in part. It retained the extended-sentence structure but reduced the aggregate custodial term from seven years to five years.

• Inner London Crown Court: On 6 September 2006, imposed an 11-year extended sentence under section 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, comprising seven years’ custody and a four-year extension period.