Morrison, R. v

When sentencing for multiple offences, the court must impose a total sentence that reflects the whole offending and is just and proportionate. This requires an overall assessment of the offending and the offender. A court should not simply add together notional sentences for individual offences.

Consecutive terms remain available, but their aggregate may be manifestly excessive even where each individual term is not. A consecutive custodial term for deliberate failure to surrender to bail will ordinarily be appropriate where the offending was an attempt to evade or delay justice.

The appellant was convicted after a jury trial in the Crown Court at Guildford of exposure and voyeurism committed against a child who lived in the same household. He also pleaded guilty to failing to surrender to bail.

The sentencing judge imposed six months’ imprisonment for exposure, ten months for voyeurism, and a consecutive seven-day term for the bail offence, producing a total of sixteen months and seven days. Protective and ancillary orders were also made.

The appeal challenged the ten-month voyeurism sentence and the overall total on the ground of totality. It also challenged the consecutive seven-day sentence for failure to surrender to bail.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The Court quashed the ten-month sentence for voyeurism and substituted six months. The total sentence was therefore reduced to twelve months and seven days’ imprisonment.

2. The six-month sentence for exposure was not challenged. The ten-month term for voyeurism was not manifestly excessive when viewed in isolation. The offence was properly placed in the highest guideline category because the complainant was observed in her own home, images were recorded, and there was an abuse of trust. The prolonged period of observation was an additional aggravating feature.

3. However, the aggregate sixteen-month sentence for the two sexual offences was manifestly excessive. The totality principle requires a sentence for multiple offences that reflects all the offending behaviour and is just and proportionate. It applies whether terms are concurrent or consecutive. A sentencing court must assess the overall offending and the offender’s personal circumstances; it cannot reach a fair total simply by adding notional single sentences.

4. The appellant’s prolonged failure to surrender to bail was deliberate and amounted to an attempt to evade or delay justice. That placed culpability in category A. As it caused no substantial delay or interference with the administration of justice, harm fell in category 3. A consecutive sentence was usually appropriate for that offence, and the seven-day consecutive term was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. The appeal against that term was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2019] EWCA Crim 1343, the court allowed the appeal against the total sentence in part. It reduced the voyeurism sentence from ten months to six months, but upheld the consecutive seven-day sentence for failure to surrender to bail.

• Crown Court at Guildford: Following a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of exposure and voyeurism. He was sentenced to a total of sixteen months and seven days’ imprisonment, comprising consecutive terms for the sexual offences and failure to surrender to bail.