MR, R. v

An appellate court will refuse leave to appeal a determinate sentence where, viewed as a whole, it is neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. Serious, repeated and premeditated offending involving knives, an imitation firearm, violence and public risk may justify substantial consecutive terms. The court may also take account of the offender’s age, lack of previous convictions, guilty pleas, personal mitigation and dangerousness assessment. A complaint based on totality will fail where the overall sentence properly reflects the seriousness of the distinct offences.

The applicant, aged 16 when he offended, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Manchester to offences including robbery, attempted robbery, wounding with intent, possession of offensive weapons, possession of imitation firearms with intent to cause fear of violence, criminal damage and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

He had used knives in two attacks and used a realistic gas-fired weapon in two further incidents. On 8 February 2019, the Crown Court imposed consecutive detention terms totalling 89 months under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 91.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application. He contended that the sentence gave insufficient weight to personal mitigation and breached the totality principle, particularly because the two imitation-firearm sentences were consecutive.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal sentence was refused. The court agreed with the single judge that the total term of 89 months’ detention was not arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

2. The offences were properly treated as exceptionally serious. They included two premeditated public-street knife attacks, one involving the theft and destruction of a moped after the victim had been stabbed; two uses of a realistic gas-fired weapon to cause fear and injury; and possession of a large kitchen knife when arrested.

3. The applicant’s age, lack of previous convictions and personal mitigation had not been disregarded. The sentencing judge’s decision to impose a determinate sentence rather than an extended determinate sentence gave substantial credit for his youth and previous good character. The plea and age discounts were not challenged.

4. The applicant’s involvement in gang culture and the sequence of serious offences justified a long determinate sentence to protect the public. The individual consecutive terms, including those imposed for the two imitation-firearm offences, did not create a total sentence that offended the totality principle.

5. The court therefore adopted the single judge’s reasoning and formally refused the renewed application.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused in [2019] EWCA Crim 1572.

• Crown Court at Manchester: On 8 February 2019, the applicant received a total of 89 months’ detention for offences on three indictments, pursuant to section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

• Single judge: Leave to appeal against sentence was refused before the renewed application to the full court.