Solomon, R v

Where serious offending is unrelated to an offence for which the offender is already serving a sentence, a consecutive sentence may be appropriate. The sentencing court must nevertheless apply totality and may reduce the sentence for the later offence to ensure that the aggregate is not manifestly excessive.

A sentence imposed on another offender following an Attorney General’s Reference does not itself set the permissible level of sentence in a different case. A disparity argument fails where the sentencing judge properly assessed the offender’s distinct role, aggravating features and overall criminality.

The applicant was convicted after trial of conspiracy to supply class A drugs. In December 2013, at the Crown Court at Inner London, he received eight years’ imprisonment. He was already serving an eight-year sentence imposed in May 2013 for perverting the course of justice.

The sentencing judge found that he had a leading role in a substantial drugs conspiracy, although below his associate in the hierarchy. The judge adopted a ten-year starting point and reduced it to eight years for totality, ordering it to be consecutive because the offences were unrelated.

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, the applicant contended that the aggregate sixteen-year sentence was manifestly excessive and disproportionate when compared with the treatment of a co-defendant. The central issue was whether the consecutive sentence was excessive or produced an improper disparity.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The eight-year consecutive sentence for the drugs conspiracy was not manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the applicant occupied a leading role. He directed and organised the acquisition, preparation and supply of drugs, supervised the deal line and controlled the runners. The evidence also entitled the judge to place the case in category 2, leading role, on the basis of the quantity, purity, duration and substantial proceeds of the conspiracy.

3. The judge was justified in adopting a post-trial starting point of ten years. The applicant’s previous offending, commission of the conspiracy partly while on police bail, and involvement of a 17-year-old of previous good character were material aggravating features.

4. The judge properly applied totality by reducing the sentence for the conspiracy from ten to eight years. A consecutive sentence remained appropriate because the drugs conspiracy was serious and unrelated to the earlier offence of perverting the course of justice. No link between the offences had been established.

5. The Court rejected the proposed comparison with the sentence subsequently imposed on a co-defendant following an Attorney General’s Reference. That decision did not set a benchmark for this applicant’s aggregate sentence. The difference arose from the proper exercise of the sentencing judge’s discretion, including the earlier totality assessment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence dismissed in [2016] EWCA Crim 93.

• Crown Court at Inner London: in December 2013, following trial, imposed eight years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply class A drugs, consecutive to an existing eight-year sentence for perverting the course of justice.