Long, R. v

Where offending is repeated, involves different victims, or comprises distinct types of crime, consecutive sentences may be necessary to reflect the offender’s overall criminality. The court must nevertheless apply the totality principle by reviewing the aggregate sentence and deciding whether it is just and proportionate.

An appellate court will not alter a sentence merely because it might itself have given greater weight to totality. Intervention requires an error of principle or an overall sentence that is manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty to a series of theft-related offences, a non-dwelling burglary, handling stolen goods, possession of a bladed article, going equipped for theft, and assault by beating. The offences were committed between March and October 2018 and followed his relapse into drug use after a lengthy period without convictions.

At Reading Crown Court, the Recorder imposed consecutive sentences for separate groups of offending, producing an overall term of 38 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed with the single judge’s leave. He contended that the offences were low-level and addiction-driven, that the starting points were too high, and that the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive because insufficient effect had been given to totality.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder’s sentencing structure was clear and careful. The overall term of 38 months’ imprisonment was neither contrary to principle nor manifestly excessive.
2. Consecutive sentences were permissible because the offending was repeated, was directed at different victims, and included an assault that differed in character from the dishonesty offences. The appellant also continued to offend after an early arrest. Those matters entitled the Recorder to use consecutive terms to reflect the overall criminality.
3. The court applied the totality guidance. Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the sentencing court must review the aggregate term and decide whether it is just and proportionate. That review does not require every group of offences to be made concurrent, nor does it prevent consecutive sentences where they properly reflect separate and repeated criminality.
4. The Court of Appeal accepted that it might itself have given greater effect to totality. That possible difference of sentencing judgment did not justify appellate intervention. The offending was persistent and planned, and it caused victims harm extending beyond the monetary value of the property stolen or damaged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against sentence dismissed.
• Crown Court at Reading: on 29 January 2019, the Recorder imposed an overall sentence of 38 months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas.
• Magistrates’ Court: committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentence.