Buckle, R. v

Where a defendant is sentenced for several offences, including perverting the course of justice in relation to another charged offence, consecutive sentences will ordinarily be appropriate. The court must nevertheless apply the totality principle and impose a sentence that reflects all the offending and is just and proportionate.

Where criminal damage valued below £5,000 reaches the Crown Court through a notice of transfer under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988, the Crown Court is confined to magistrates’ sentencing powers for that offence.

The appellants, a husband and wife with no previous convictions, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Sheffield to assault occasioning actual bodily harm, criminal damage and perverting the course of justice. The offences arose from a sustained attack on a neighbour in her home, damage to the home, and the forcible taking and disposal of CCTV material.

They received concurrent sentences for criminal damage, two years’ imprisonment for assault, and consecutive eight-month sentences for perverting the course of justice. They appealed against the overall and individual sentences, relying in particular on mitigation and the effect of immediate custody on their children. The central issue was whether the total of two years and eight months was manifestly excessive.

1. The appeals were allowed in part. The total sentence of two years and eight months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. A total of two years and two months was appropriate for the whole offending.

2. The judge had been right to make the sentences for perverting the course of justice consecutive. An attempt to pervert the course of justice in respect of another charged offence ordinarily calls for consecutive sentencing. That did not remove the court’s duty to apply totality: the overall sentence had to reflect all offending and remain just and proportionate.

3. The sentences for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and perverting the course of justice were quashed and replaced by 22 months’ and four months’ imprisonment respectively. The court did not need separately to decide whether the original individual sentences were too high.

4. The four-month concurrent sentence imposed on Mr Buckle for criminal damage was unlawful. As the damage did not exceed £5,000 and the count had reached the Crown Court through a notice of transfer under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988, the Crown Court had only magistrates’ sentencing powers. That sentence was quashed and replaced with two months’ imprisonment.

5. The substituted total properly reflected the seriousness of the offences and the mitigating circumstances. The court gave careful consideration to the position of the appellants’ children in light of the guidance in R v Petherick [2013] 1 WLR 1102.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2019] EWCA Crim 1652, allowed the appeals in part, quashed specified sentences and substituted a total sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Sheffield — on 23 October 2018, sentenced each appellant following guilty pleas to assault occasioning actual bodily harm, criminal damage and perverting the course of justice.