Jamieson & Anor, R v

When sentencing several offences, the court must set a total sentence which reflects the offender’s overall criminality and the course and nature of the conduct, while observing the principle of totality. Concurrent sentences for like offences are not compulsory. Consecutive sentences may be justified where the statutory maximum for an individual offence would otherwise prevent a sentence properly reflecting the criminality involved.

Deliberate acid attacks on shop staff involve a real risk of lifelong disfigurement and catastrophic injury. They warrant severe custodial sentences for punishment and deterrence. A difference in total sentence between co-offenders may be justified by differences in the number and seriousness of their respective offences.

The appellants, brothers, pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Inner London to multiple theft offences and offences of administering a poison or noxious substance with intent contrary to section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The first appellant also pleaded guilty to burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

They had conducted a sustained campaign of shop thefts. On several occasions, acid was sprayed at staff who intervened, causing serious and lasting injuries. The Crown Court imposed total sentences of nine years’ imprisonment on the first appellant and six and a half years’ imprisonment on the second.

Both appealed against sentence. They contended that consecutive terms for the section 24 offences offended totality and that the first appellant’s sentence created unjustified disparity.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The total sentences were neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
2. A sentencing judge must impose a total sentence which properly reflects the offender’s overall criminality and the course and nature of the offending, while respecting totality. The ordinary use of concurrent sentences for like offences does not impose an inflexible rule. The court explained that the statutory maximum of five years for a section 24 offence could prevent concurrent terms from adequately reflecting a sustained and grave course of conduct.
3. The court treated the approach in R v Cooper (1983) 5 Cr App R(S) 295 as inapplicable without qualification. That case concerned three deception offences involving a total of £105. Here, distinct acid attacks caused serious injuries and created a real risk of lifelong disfigurement and catastrophic harm. Consecutive sentences were therefore justified to reflect each appellant’s criminality.
4. Acid attacks on shop staff were a particularly cruel form of violence. Severe sentences were justified both to punish the offenders and to deter others. The court regarded the campaign as conduct of the utmost gravity, akin to robbery.
5. There was no objectionable disparity. The first appellant had been sentenced for more offences, including one additional section 24 offence and an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Those differences amply justified his higher total sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The court dismissed both appeals against sentence.
• Crown Court at Inner London. On 24 April 2008, following guilty pleas, the first appellant received nine years’ imprisonment and the second received six and a half years’ imprisonment, subject to credit for time on remand.
• Stratford Magistrates’ Court. On 26 November 2007, the first appellant pleaded guilty to burglary and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.