Dunbar, R v

The totality principle requires the court to assess whether the overall sentence is proportionate to the whole offending. It does not require concurrent sentences for distinct offences. Possession of knives in public, particularly for anticipated violence connected with drug dealing, may properly attract a separate consecutive sentence. A further drug-supply offence committed after escape from lawful custody is a separate incident which may also properly be marked by a consecutive sentence. A total term will stand where the sentencing judge has addressed totality and it is not manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Exeter to cocaine and cannabis supply offences, possession of three bladed articles, possession of criminal property, escape, and a further cannabis-supply offence committed nine days after his escape. He received a total of five years’ imprisonment.

He appealed against sentence, contending that the consecutive terms for possession of the knives, escape, and the later cannabis offence produced an excessive total sentence contrary to the principle of totality. The central issue was whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive for the combined offending.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of five years’ imprisonment was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat possession of the three knives as a serious and separate aggravating feature of the drug offending. The appellant carried them in public for protection against customers or rivals, with the prospect of their use in violence. A consecutive eight-month sentence was therefore proper. The court followed the approach in R v Povey and Others [2008] EWCA Crim 1261, which confirmed that a consecutive sentence for possessing a bladed article may be proper and may remain compatible with totality.

3. The later cannabis-supply offence was an entirely separate incident. It was committed after the appellant had escaped lawful custody and while he remained unlawfully at large. Those circumstances were analogous to offending on bail and justified a further consecutive sentence.

4. Totality required an assessment of the five-year term against all the offences, rather than a mechanical choice between consecutive and concurrent sentences. The sentencing judge had expressly considered totality throughout the exercise. His approach and the resulting aggregate term were within principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against the total sentence was dismissed: [2018] EWCA Crim 2636.

• Crown Court at Exeter: His Honour Judge Rose imposed a total sentence of five years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to six counts.