Flynn, R v

Where sentences for serious but distinct offences are imposed consecutively to an existing sentence, the sentencing court must give sufficient weight to the overall effect of the aggregate term. Consecutive sentences may remain appropriate, but the principle of totality can require a substantial reduction in the sentence for the later offences so that the combined punishment is just and proportionate.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to twelve fraud offences, identity-document offences and perverting the course of justice. The fraud involved sustained use of his brother’s identity to obtain driving licences, bank accounts, finance, insurance, a mobile-phone contract and a bridging loan.

He was already serving eight years’ imprisonment for conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The Recorder imposed a total of 45 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to that sentence. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal after a single judge had refused it. The central issue was whether the consecutive 45-month term gave proper effect to totality.

1. Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed to the extent of reducing the sentence. The fraud, identity and perverting offences were serious, sophisticated and distinct from the drug offending. There was therefore no error in imposing the sentence for them consecutively to the existing eight-year term.

2. The Recorder’s five-year starting point for the later offences, viewed in isolation, was not wrong. The Court nevertheless held that he had not given sufficient weight to the overall effect of the aggregate sentence. Proper application of the principle of totality required the total consecutive term for these offences to be reduced to 30 months.

3. The Court quashed the 30-month sentence on count 12 and substituted 18 months. It also quashed the consecutive nine-month sentence on count 15 and substituted a consecutive six-month sentence. The remaining sentences were unaffected. The total sentence consecutive to the eight-year drug sentence was therefore 30 months.

4. The victim surcharge was quashed because it should not have been imposed having regard to the dates of the offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — by judgment dated 12 October 2018, [2018] EWCA Crim 2468, granted leave and allowed the renewed sentence appeal in part, reducing the consecutive term from 45 months to 30 months.
• Crown Court at Liverpool — on 23 May 2018, imposed 45 months’ imprisonment for the fraud, identity-document and perverting offences, consecutive to an existing eight-year sentence.
• Single judge — refused permission to appeal sentence; the applicant renewed the application before the full court.