Rommick, R. v

Where separate drug-supply offences are committed weeks apart, the imposition of consecutive sentences is not erroneous merely because the offences are similar. The later offence may be aggravated by the offender having committed it after arrest and while under investigation for the earlier offence.

The appellate question is the totality and overall length of the sentence, rather than its structure alone. A sentencing judge’s failure expressly to mention totality does not establish error where consideration of the overall sentence is clearly implicit. An appeal succeeds only if the total term is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Wood Green Crown Court to two offences of possession of cannabis with intent to supply and one offence of failing to surrender to bail. The offences involved separate searches of his home in March and April 2018. Drug-dealing materials and evidence of dealing were found on both occasions, and weapons were also recovered.

The sentencing judge imposed consecutive custodial terms of nine months, sixteen months and one month, totalling 26 months. The appellant appealed on the grounds that consecutive sentences were inappropriate, that totality had not been properly considered, and that the total was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the total sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The total sentence of 26 months was high within the available range but was not manifestly excessive.

2. There was no error of principle in imposing consecutive sentences for the two cannabis offences. They were distinct offences committed several weeks apart. The second was additionally aggravated because it was committed after the appellant’s arrest and while he was under investigation for the first offence.

3. The proper focus was the totality of the sentencing rather than its precise structure. Although the sentencing judge did not expressly refer to totality, her conclusion that a suspended sentence could not be imposed showed that she had considered the overall position.

4. The appellant’s youth, difficult upbringing and recent efforts to change his life were relevant mitigation. However, he had significant previous convictions, committed the second supply offence despite his arrest for the first, and possessed deadly weapons alongside drugs and evidence of dealing. His mitigation was also undermined by his continued false assertion that the drugs were for personal use despite his guilty pleas.

5. The custodial sentences had wrongly been described and recorded as imprisonment. Because of the appellant’s age, they were sentences of detention in a young offender institution. The court directed correction of the Crown Court record accordingly.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against sentence dismissed; the record was corrected to describe the custodial terms as detention in a young offender institution.

• Crown Court at Wood Green: on 7 August 2019, imposed consecutive terms totalling 26 months for two cannabis-supply offences and failure to surrender to bail.