Jeffs, R. v

Sentencing guidelines may exceptionally be departed from where the facts disclose harm of a striking and unusual seriousness which makes the prescribed category range inappropriate. Credit for a guilty plea to a lesser offence depends on when the offender first made an unequivocal indication of that plea, rather than on when the charge was formally amended.

Where consecutive sentences are appropriate for separate offending, the court must nevertheless apply the totality principle. It must impose a total sentence that reflects all offending and is just and proportionate. It will usually be wrong simply to add the sentences that would be appropriate for each offence in isolation.

The appellant appealed against consecutive sentences imposed at the Crown Court at Lewes: two years’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and 18 months’ imprisonment for attempted burglary. The total was three and a half years.

The assault involved a single unprovoked punch which caused a fracture and had grave, continuing consequences for the victim. The attempted burglary was committed shortly after the appellant’s release from custody and caused damage and substantial anxiety to the householder. The appeal challenged the individual sentences, credit for the guilty pleas, and the application of totality.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The sentence of two years’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was not manifestly excessive and remained in place.
2. The assault fell within the guideline category for greater harm without the listed indicators of greater culpability. However, the victim’s continuing and exceptional harm was a striking and unusual aggravating feature. It justified a sentence outside that category’s normal range. The court also rejected the contention that more than 10 per cent credit was due for the plea. The appellant first unequivocally indicated a plea to the lesser offence on the first day of trial.
3. The 18-month sentence for attempted burglary exceeded the guideline range after allowing the appropriate one-third credit for the early guilty plea. The offence was aggravated by the appellant’s antecedents, its commission while on licence shortly after release, its night-time commission, and the damage caused. A sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment would have been appropriate if that offence had stood alone.
4. Consecutive terms were appropriate because the offences were unrelated and different. Yet totality required a just and proportionate overall sentence. The judge had not addressed that requirement, and the court held that it was inappropriate simply to aggregate the two stand-alone sentences. A total of two years and nine months was appropriate.
5. The court quashed the 18-month sentence for attempted burglary and substituted nine months’ imprisonment, consecutive to the two-year sentence for assault.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the sentence appeal in part and varied the total sentence to two years and nine months’ imprisonment: [2019] EWCA Crim 1651.
• Crown Court at Lewes Imposed consecutive sentences of two years’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and 18 months’ imprisonment for attempted burglary. No citation was stated.
• Magistrates’ Court The appellant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary before being sentenced for that offence in the Crown Court.