Gorringe, R. v

Totality requires a sentence that is just and proportionate. It does not require a further reduction merely because an offender is later sentenced for offences committed before an earlier sentence. The offender’s failure to disclose the full offending at the earlier hearing, and the risk of an undeserved advantage, are relevant considerations. Consecutive sentences for grave offending against separate victims may be proper where the overall sentence is not manifestly excessive. A sentence should be read as a whole. Where its overall structure reveals that the sentencing judge misspoke about an extension period, the court may clarify the intended global sentence.

Following a jury trial at St Albans Crown Court, the appellant was convicted of 22 serious sexual offences against two young and vulnerable victims. The offending included rape, assault by penetration, causing sexual activity without consent, and causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography.

The Recorder imposed a total extended sentence of 32 years, comprising 24 years’ custody and an eight-year extended licence period. The appellant appealed against sentence. He contended that the sentences were excessive and that insufficient weight had been given to totality, both between the offences against the two victims and because the offences pre-dated his 2013 sentence for other sexual offending.

The court also considered an apparent inconsistency in the Recorder’s description of the extended licence periods.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total extended sentence of 32 years was not manifestly excessive.
2. The Recorder’s remarks, read as a whole, showed that he had misspoken when referring to an eight-year extension period on counts 4 and 5 as well as on later counts. He intended an overall custodial term of 24 years: eight years for the offences against CG and 16 years for the principal offences against LA. The single eight-year extended licence period attached to the latter sentence.
3. There was no objection in principle to consecutive sentences for grave offending against two separate victims. The Recorder had addressed totality. Given the sustained, exceptionally depraved offending, the multiple-incident rape counts, and the seriousness of the concurrent offences, the overall sentence remained proportionate.
4. Under section 166(3)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Totality Guidelines, the overriding objective was a just and proportionate sentence. The means of achieving that result depended on the circumstances, so no universal rule governed the sentencing of offences discovered after an earlier sentence.
5. The appellant had not disclosed the present offences at his earlier sentencing, had put the victims through a trial, and could not obtain an undeserved advantage from being sentenced separately. Had all offending been dealt with together, a life sentence was likely. The Recorder was therefore justified in imposing the sentences without a further reduction for the earlier sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal against sentence in [2019] EWCA Crim 552.
• Crown Court at St Albans: Following conviction by a jury, the Recorder imposed a total extended sentence of 32 years on 7 September 2018.