Benhammou, R, v>

A sentencing court should identify and apply the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines, explain any departure from them, and state the reduction allowed for a guilty plea. Where cash possessed as criminal property is integral evidence of street dealing, it may properly be treated as part of that offending and sentenced concurrently with possession with intent to supply.

In applying totality after delay has led to separate sentencing proceedings, the court must ask what sentence would have been imposed had all offences been dealt with together. No further reduction is required where the offences are separate and independent and consecutive treatment remains justified, particularly where the later offending was committed on bail.

The Crown appealed by permission against sentences imposed at Southwark Crown Court after the respondent pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis with intent to supply, possession of cocaine, dangerous driving, and possession of criminal property. The total sentence was three years’ imprisonment.

The cannabis and cash were found after the respondent drove dangerously from police officers. The offences were committed while he was on bail for similar, earlier drug offending, for which he was subsequently sentenced at Isleworth Crown Court.

The appeal challenged the Recorder’s reasons, the consecutive treatment of the criminal-property count, the credit for guilty pleas, and whether delay in prosecuting these offences required a further reduction under totality.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The total sentence was reduced from three years to two years and six months. The other imprisonment terms stood, subject to making the sentences for possession with intent to supply cannabis and possessing criminal property concurrent rather than consecutive.

2. The Recorder’s failure expressly to apply the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines, explain the categorisation and sentence by reference to them, identify the guilty-plea credit, and address delay was significant. Sentencers should identify the applicable guidelines and explain any departure from them. The need for clear reasons is especially important where the proper approach is not obvious.

3. The appropriate starting point for the cannabis offence was 12 months, notwithstanding the modest quantity, because it was street dealing. The respondent’s proximate and similar convictions, and the fact that he offended while on bail, were aggravating features.

4. The cash and packaged drugs together evidenced street dealing. Possession of the criminal property was therefore part of, and evidence of, the same offending as possession with intent to supply. The two sentences should have been concurrent. A 25% reduction for the guilty pleas was appropriate because delays in arraignment and the late reduction of the criminal-property allegation materially affected the timing of the plea.

5. The six-month consecutive sentence for dangerous driving remained appropriate because that offence was separate and independent. Although there was scope to criticise the delay in bringing the present prosecution, no further totality adjustment was required. Even if all offences had been sentenced together, the present offences would properly have been consecutive to the earlier offences: they were separate, and were committed on bail.

6. The driving disqualification remained 12 months, but its extension was reduced from 18 months to 15 months to reflect the shorter custodial term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the Crown’s sentence appeal in part and varied the total sentence to two years and six months’ imprisonment: [2019] EWCA Crim 842.
• Southwark Crown Court: On 26 November 2018, imposed a total sentence of three years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas.