Dawson, R v

Where sentencing for multiple grave offences is structured through a lead sentence and aggregation, the resulting sentence must still reflect the applicable guideline ranges and the principle of totality. That method will not justify a custodial term that is manifestly excessive.

Sentences for offences forming one group may properly run concurrently, while consecutive sentences may be required for distinct later offending and for an offence of materially different seriousness. The overall structure must produce a proportionate total sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook to blackmail committed while in prison, three robberies involving vulnerable victims, related weapons and driving offences, and aggravated burglary. The later offences were committed while he was on licence.

The sentencing judge imposed an extended sentence of 35 years, comprising a 30-year custodial term and a five-year extension period. Permission to appeal was limited to the length of the custodial term. The appellant did not challenge the finding of dangerousness or the extension period.

The issue was whether the individual sentences, the 20-year pre-discount sentence for aggravated burglary, and the aggregate custodial term properly reflected the guidelines and totality.

1. Appeal allowed. The court held that the original aggregate custodial term of 30 years was excessive. Although the offending was exceptionally serious and required a substantial custodial sentence, the sentencing structure had produced a disproportionate result.

2. The court upheld the sentences for the prison blackmail offences and for the robberies. The robbery sentences properly reflected the severe aggravating features, including targeting vulnerable victims, use of knives, planning, relevant previous convictions, and offending while on licence.

3. The aggravated burglary was an offence of greater harm and higher culpability. Its seriousness justified movement to the top of the applicable 13-year guideline range before credit for the guilty plea. However, the 20-year pre-discount sentence imposed for that offence was substantially too high. Choosing aggravated burglary as the lead offence and aggregating all the offending was usually an appropriate approach, but in this case it may have led to error.

4. The court varied the sentence structure. The six-year sentence for the first indictment was to run consecutively to the concurrent sentences on the second, third and fourth indictments, producing a determinate sentence of 13 years and 10 months. The sentence on the fifth indictment was quashed and replaced by a consecutive 14-year extended sentence, comprising a nine-year custodial term and a five-year extended licence period under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

5. The appellant was therefore to serve half of the determinate sentence and then two-thirds of the custodial term of the extended sentence before the Parole Board could consider release.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal against the length of the custodial term and varied the extended sentence.

• Crown Court at Snaresbrook On 29 March 2019 imposed a 35-year extended sentence, comprising 30 years’ custody and a five-year extension period.