Oyefeso, R. v

Where an offender has substantially complied with the requirements of an earlier suspended sentence order, that compliance should in principle be reflected by credit when the order is activated. Subsequent offending and its seriousness may reduce the credit, but do not justify withholding it altogether without adequate reasons. Totality is the overarching principle when sentencing for the new offence and activation of the earlier order. Consecutive sentences may nevertheless be appropriate where the new offending is factually distinct from that which led to the suspended sentence.

R v Oyefeso appealed against sentence following his conviction at the Crown Court at Southampton for dangerous driving contrary to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and his guilty plea to driving without insurance.

The appellant deliberately drove into a creditor and used the vehicle as a weapon. The judge imposed 12 months’ imprisonment for dangerous driving and activated in full, consecutively, an 18-month suspended sentence imposed in 2015 for possession of a prohibited firearm. The appellant had completed the 180 hours of unpaid work required by that order and had otherwise substantially complied with its requirements, but had committed further motoring offences during its operational period.

The issue was whether it was just to allow no credit at all for that substantial compliance when activating the suspended sentence.

1. The appeal was allowed to the stated extent. The sentencing judge had considered the appellant’s observance of the suspended sentence order and had not ignored a relevant consideration. The question was whether it was just to allow no credit for that observance.

2. The judge was entitled to take account of the appellant’s previous convictions, particularly his poor driving record during the operational period, the seriousness of the dangerous driving, and his use of the vehicle as a weapon. Those matters justified reducing the credit available for compliance. They did not, however, adequately explain why all credit should be withheld.

3. Completion of the 180 hours’ unpaid work meant that the appellant had served a component of the punishment imposed by the earlier order. An offender who substantially complies with an order should in principle receive some reflection of that compliance in the ultimate sentence. The court held that at least three months’ credit should have been allowed.

4. Totality was the overarching sentencing principle. The judge had not expressly identified or explained its application. Nevertheless, consecutive sentences were permissible because the dangerous driving was factually distinct from the offending which had led to the suspended sentence.

5. The court set aside the sentence and re-sentenced. It maintained the 12-month sentence for dangerous driving as one within the judge’s entitlement, to run consecutively to the activated suspended sentence. It also reduced the driving disqualification by one and a half months, with the extended driving test requirement remaining.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the sentence appeal to the stated extent, set aside the sentence, and re-sentenced the appellant.
• Crown Court at Southampton On 7 August 2017 convicted the appellant of dangerous driving and sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment. It activated consecutively an 18-month suspended sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Basildon on 19 March 2015.