Murray, R. v

The principle of totality requires an aggregate sentence that properly reflects the relationship between multiple offences. Consecutive sentences may be appropriate where later offences were committed while the offender was on bail. However, where further offences were committed before arrest or bail for the earlier offence, consecutive terms may produce an excessive total. In that situation, concurrent sentences may be required even though consecutive terms remain appropriate for separate offending on bail.

The appellant was convicted of two burglaries and common assault after trial, and later pleaded guilty to further burglaries on three indictments. The offences involved thefts of laptop computers and other property from hospital, school and university premises. Several offences were committed while she was on licence and, in some instances, while on bail.

At the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames, the Recorder imposed consecutive sentences, save for the two counts on the final indictment, resulting in a total of five years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed on the grounds that the total was manifestly excessive and insufficient regard had been paid to totality.

1. Appeal allowed against sentence. The court varied the sentences and reduced the aggregate term from five years’ imprisonment to 45 months’ imprisonment.
2. The individual sentences and the Recorder’s assessment of culpability, harm, aggravating features and mitigation were correct. The offending was deliberate, planned and committed against a background of numerous similar convictions. The appellant was also on licence throughout and on bail when offences on three indictments were committed.
3. Consecutive sentences were necessary for the indictments involving offending on bail. Those circumstances justified treating the later offending as warranting additional punishment within a total sentence.
4. It was nevertheless inappropriate to impose consecutive terms for the two burglaries on indictment T20160616. The appellant had not been arrested, or placed on bail, after the first burglary before committing the second burglary and the assault. The terms on that indictment should therefore have run concurrently, as the Recorder had directed for the two burglaries on the final indictment.
5. The court varied the sentences on indictment T20160616 so that they were concurrent with each other. All other sentences remained consecutive as imposed. The term on that indictment was 15 months’ imprisonment, producing a total sentence of 45 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence allowed. The total sentence was reduced from five years to 45 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: On 29 September 2017, the Recorder imposed a total sentence of five years’ imprisonment for burglaries and common assault.