Mills, R. v

A sentencing court must not order consecutive terms which exceed the applicable maximum sentencing power. Where consecutive orders produce an unlawful aggregate, the appellate court must quash those orders and substitute a lawful concurrent structure, even if the resulting sentence inadequately reflects the gravity of the offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court to three assaults by beating and one offence of criminal damage arising from an incident involving his then partner and his parents. The remaining charge from that incident was left on the file, and allegations relating to an earlier incident involving an ex-partner were not pursued.

Her Honour Judge Hughes QC imposed consecutive terms totalling 14 months’ imprisonment. Although the appeal was initially advanced as one against sentence severity, the Registrar identified that the consecutive sentences exceeded the relevant sentencing powers. The issue was the lawful structure of the sentence.

1. The appeal was allowed and the sentence varied. The court accepted the parties’ agreement that, on the facts of this case, the maximum sentence that could lawfully have been imposed for counts 3 and 4 was six months’ imprisonment.
2. The consecutive orders for counts 3 and 4 therefore had to be quashed. The terms imposed on those counts remained in place but were to run concurrently. The one-month sentence for criminal damage on count 5 remained consecutive to the five-month sentence on count 2. The total sentence was accordingly six months’ imprisonment.
3. The court did not increase the criminal-damage sentence. No finding had been made as to the value of the damage, and the respondent did not invite the court to increase that sentence.
4. The court observed that the resulting lawful sentence did not reflect the gravity of the offending. The assaults were committed upon the appellant’s then partner and parents in their home, and he damaged that home. His record included violence, threatening behaviour and breaches of court orders, particularly in domestic settings. The court considered that the decision to accept the pleas had given insufficient regard to sentencing principles in domestic-violence cases and to the future protection of persons encountered by the appellant in a domestic context. It asked prosecuting counsel to communicate those observations to the relevant Crown Prosecution Service area.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court quashed the unlawful consecutive orders for counts 3 and 4 and varied the sentence to a total of six months’ imprisonment: [2016] EWCA Crim 672.
• Crown Court: Her Honour Judge Hughes QC imposed consecutive sentences totalling 14 months’ imprisonment. No citation is stated in the judgment.
• Magistrates’ Court: The appellant first appeared on 7 September 2015. The court declined jurisdiction on all charges and remanded him in custody to the Crown Court.