Stockwin, R. v

Where offences are sentenced after the offender has received a determinate sentence, but were committed before that earlier sentence was imposed, the court must assess the sentence that would have been imposed had all offending been dealt with together. The resulting aggregate must be just and proportionate. If it is not, the sentence for the later offences must be adjusted. Serious and persistent breach-of-trust theft may justify a severe sentence and departure from sentencing guidelines, but it does not displace the totality principle.

The appellant, a finance manager, pleaded guilty at Northampton Crown Court to two counts of theft. He had diverted more than £300,000 of his employer's money into his own bank accounts by altering payment-transfer details.

The judge imposed consecutive terms of two years nine months and three years six months, totalling six years three months, to run concurrently with a five-year sentence already being served for earlier convictions for dishonesty. The thefts now sentenced had been committed before that earlier sentence was imposed.

On appeal against sentence, the central issue was whether the aggregate punishment properly reflected the Sentencing Guideline Council guidance on totality.

1. Appeal allowed. The total sentence for the two thefts was reduced to four years and four months' imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentence already being served.

2. The sentencing judge had been entitled to exceed the applicable guideline range. The offending involved substantial sums, a serious abuse of trust, greed, and a persistent pattern of dishonesty despite previous custodial sentences. Considered individually, the consecutive sentences were not open to complaint.

3. However, the totality guidance applied because the thefts for which the appellant was later sentenced had been committed before the five-year determinate sentence was imposed. The court had to consider what sentence would have been imposed if all the offending had been dealt with at the same time, and ensure that the aggregate was just and proportionate.

4. After allowing for the guilty plea, the combined offending would otherwise have produced an aggregate sentence close to 15 years. That was excessive. Taking account of the aggravating features and the appellant's record, the court considered that a sentence of about 12 years would have been appropriate if all matters had been sentenced together.

5. The court attributed six and a half years before plea credit to the present offences. It reduced count 1 to two years and count 2 to two years and four months, producing a total of four years and four months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and reduced the total sentence to four years and four months' imprisonment, concurrent with the sentence already being served.
• Crown Court at Northampton: On 9 January 2013, following guilty pleas to two counts of theft, imposed consecutive sentences totalling six years and three months' imprisonment, concurrent with an existing sentence.