Gimbert, R v

When sentencing for several related offences, the total sentence must reflect the whole criminality and remain just and proportionate. Concurrent sentences may be appropriate, but the sentence for the most serious count should ordinarily be increased where necessary to reflect the additional offending. A failure to make that adjustment may leave the sentence insufficiently reflective of the offending. The appellate court will nevertheless decline to interfere unless, considering the particular mitigation and circumstances, the overall sentence is unduly lenient.

The Attorney General referred, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, concurrent sentences imposed at Birmingham Crown Court on John David Gimbert for conspiracy to defraud and four thefts.

Gimbert had abused his position as executor and attorney for his highly vulnerable cousin. The offences concerned her inheritance, including a bungalow and money held in bank and building-society accounts. The total value stolen or defrauded was £178,651, although the money was repaid after social services became involved.

The Recorder imposed a total of three and a half years’ imprisonment. The central issue was whether concurrent sentences, without an uplift on the conspiracy count to reflect the total offending, rendered the overall sentence unduly lenient.

1. Reference dismissed. The court granted leave to make the reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but declined to interfere with the total sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment.

2. The Recorder’s sentence on each individual count was proper. However, the Recorder had imposed all sentences concurrently without increasing the sentence for the most serious count, conspiracy to defraud, to reflect the overall seriousness of the related offending. That approach did not fully reflect the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.

3. For multiple offences, the court must impose a total sentence that reflects all the offending and is just and proportionate. Where concurrent sentences are appropriate, the sentence on the principal offence will ordinarily exceed the sentence that would have been appropriate for that offence alone if an increase is needed to reflect the additional criminality.

4. Despite that deficiency, the overall sentence was not unduly lenient in the particular circumstances. Material mitigation included the offender’s previous good character, repayment of the money, delay, and the impact of imprisonment on uninvolved family members. The sentences therefore stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2017] EWCA Crim 2508, granted leave for the Attorney General’s reference but declined to interfere with the sentence.

• Crown Court sitting in Birmingham: On 6 October 2017, the Recorder imposed concurrent sentences totalling three and a half years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to defraud and theft offences.