Delaney, R v

Consecutive sentences may properly be imposed for separate, serious and professionally executed ram-raid burglaries, even where the offender was not on bail when committing the later offence. Earlier guidance indicating a starting point of about seven years after trial for a single ram raid does not determine the proper aggregate sentence for two such offences. The principle of totality remains an independent restraint. Where the sentencing judge adopted the correct approach but fixed consecutive terms too high, an appellate court may substitute lower consecutive terms that properly reflect the overall criminality.

The appellant was unanimously convicted at the Crown Court at Hull of two burglaries and four offences of taking vehicles without consent. The offences comprised two ram raids, three months apart, in which stolen JCBs were used to remove cash machines from commercial premises. The judge imposed consecutive sentences of four and eight years for the burglaries, producing a total of 12 years’ imprisonment.

The appellant appealed against sentence only. The issues were whether consecutive sentences were appropriate and whether the total sentence was excessive having regard to totality.

Appeal allowed to the extent of reducing the total sentence from 12 years to 10 years’ imprisonment.

1. The judge committed no error of principle in ordering the burglary sentences to run consecutively. They were distinct, very serious and sophisticated offences, committed three months apart. The fact that the appellant was not on bail when he committed the second burglary did not prevent the imposition of consecutive sentences.
2. The court accepted that the offending was carefully planned and professionally executed. The observations in R v Burn & Ors were highly relevant to ram-raid offending. The guidance reviewed in Attorney-General’s References Nos 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of 2007 (Carl Kevin Callaghan & Ors) [2008] 1 Cr App R(S) 88, indicating a starting point of about seven years after trial, concerned a single ram raid. It did not support the appellant’s submission that a total of seven or eight years was appropriate for these two professionally planned offences.
3. Nevertheless, totality required a lower aggregate sentence. Although the judge’s analysis and her decision to impose consecutive terms were correct, terms of four and eight years were pitched too high. The court quashed those terms and substituted three years for the first burglary and seven years for the second, consecutively. The concurrent six-month sentences for taking vehicles without consent, the disqualification order and the remand-time order remained unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2010] EWCA Crim 988, the court allowed the sentence appeal to the extent of substituting consecutive terms totalling 10 years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Hull — The appellant was convicted of two burglaries and four offences of taking vehicles without consent, and sentenced to consecutive terms of four and eight years for the burglaries.