Saldana, R v

In assessing the minimum term for a life sentence for aggravated burglary, the court must evaluate the offence’s overall seriousness, including planning, weapons, threats, multiple victims, restraint of victims, the offender’s leading role and relevant antecedents. Earlier sentencing decisions do not make a minimum term excessive where the present offence is materially more serious and sentencing levels have increased.

Where the offender is already serving a determinate sentence which would have been consecutive to a determinate sentence for the new offence, the minimum term should be adjusted to reflect that existing sentence. The resulting minimum term must be assessed in the round.

The appellant appealed against a life sentence with a minimum term of ten years, imposed by His Honour Judge Niblett at Lewes Crown Court for conspiracy to burgle and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary.

The aggravated burglary was a planned gang attack at an occupied home. The appellant, wearing a disguise and carrying a loaded gun, threatened the occupants. Other offenders carried weapons. Adult victims and a child were terrorised and restrained.

The appellant accepted that a life sentence was proper. He contended that the ten-year minimum term was manifestly excessive, relying on earlier aggravated-burglary sentencing decisions. The central issue was whether the minimum term properly reflected the exceptional seriousness of the offending and the sentence already being served for serious firearms offences.

1. Appeal dismissed. The minimum term of ten years was not manifestly excessive.
2. The aggravated burglary was at a very high level of seriousness. Its aggravating features included the use of a real, loaded gun; threats of violence; a group attack involving other weapons; disguises; the appellant’s leadership role; multiple victims including a seven-year-old child; full premeditation; the tying-up of the victims; and the appellant’s serious record, including firearms and violence offences.
3. The earlier aggravated-burglary cases relied on by the appellant did not assist him. The present offending, together with his previous convictions, was more serious. In addition, those authorities were about 20 years old and sentencing ranges for such offending had increased.
4. The court gave material weight to the appellant’s existing sentence of six and a half years’ imprisonment for serious firearms offences. A determinate sentence for the new offences would plainly have been consecutive. When fixing a life-sentence minimum term, it was appropriate to adjust for that existing sentence. At the time of sentence, the appellant had approximately two to three years of it left to serve.
5. Viewed on that adjusted basis, the ten-year minimum term was broadly equivalent to a minimum term of seven to eight years for the new offending alone. That corresponded to a determinate sentence of about 14 to 16 years, and a post-trial starting point of about 21 to 24 years. In the circumstances, the sentence was appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal against the life sentence and ten-year minimum term.
• Lewes Crown Court: His Honour Judge Niblett imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term of ten years for conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary, with a concurrent five-year sentence for conspiracy to burgle.