Lawson, R v

Where consecutive sentences are imposed for offending committed while on bail, the sentencing court must still ensure that the total sentence is not excessive when viewed overall. Serious and sustained dishonesty against vulnerable victims, involving abuse of trust and repeated transactions, may justify immediate custody and consecutive terms for bail offending. Personal mitigation, guilty pleas, assistance to the police and compensation may nevertheless affect the proper aggregate sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Lincoln to theft and eight fraud offences. She had misused cheques and bank cards belonging to three elderly women, including care-home residents to whom she had access through her work. The offending involved an abuse of trust, multiple transactions and further offending while on bail.

On 16 October 2009, the recorder imposed concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment for counts 1 to 7 and consecutive concurrent terms of 12 months for counts 8 and 9, producing a total of three years. The appeal challenged the overall length of that sentence.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court held that the aggregate sentence of three years’ imprisonment was excessive when viewed overall.

2. The offending was serious. It involved sustained and sophisticated dishonesty over about six months, gross abuse of trust, three elderly victims, and an attempt during interview to implicate innocent people. The appellant had also committed counts 8 and 9 after release on bail. Those features justified substantial custodial sentences.

3. The recorder had properly taken account of the relevant sentencing guidance, the appellant’s guilty pleas, and her personal mitigation. The appellant’s assistance in recovering the cheque book and her offer to repay the victims were also relevant, although her further offending reduced the weight of the assistance.

4. The Court confirmed that consecutive sentences were proper in principle for counts 8 and 9 because they were committed while the appellant was on bail. However, consecutive sentencing remained subject to the totality assessment. In light of all the offences and mitigation, the resulting aggregate sentence was too high.

5. The Court quashed the two-year sentences on counts 1 to 7 and substituted 18 months’ imprisonment on each, concurrently. It substituted nine months’ imprisonment on each of counts 8 and 9, concurrently with each other but consecutively to count 1. The total sentence was therefore reduced to two years and three months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the sentence appeal and substituted an aggregate sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Lincoln — on 16 October 2009, following guilty pleas to theft and fraud offences, imposed an aggregate sentence of three years’ imprisonment.