Broad, R v

Separate sentences may in principle be consecutive where later offending was committed while the offender was effectively on bail for earlier offending. The court must then adjust the aggregate sentence for totality so that it remains just and proportionate. A sentencing judge must not sentence for offending on a scale beyond the charges, although an admission of wider activity may be considered as evidence of role and awareness of the operation. An appellate court reviews whether the total sentence is manifestly excessive, taking account of aggravating features, accepted mitigation and, where appropriate, unusually restrictive custodial conditions.

The appellant appealed against a sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent on 9 July 2020. He received six years’ imprisonment for four class A drug offences, arising from two sets of street-dealing offences committed in June 2019 and March 2020. The sentences were concurrent within each indictment but consecutive overall. He had pleaded guilty at a late stage and received one-sixth credit.

The appellant argued that the sentences should have been concurrent with an uplift for the second set of offences, and that the total sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issues were whether consecutive sentences were permissible and whether the total sentence properly reflected totality.

1. Consecutive sentences. The court rejected the challenge to consecutive sentences. The second set of offences was committed while the appellant was effectively on bail for the first set, having been released under investigation. He was also on bail for a theft offence. Although this was not technically bail in one respect, it came to the same thing for ordinary sentencing purposes. Consecutive sentences were therefore appropriate in principle: [20]–[21].
2. Totality. Consecutive sentences remained subject to the totality principle. The sentencing judge had to adjust the overall sentence so that it was just and proportionate to the appellant’s total criminality. The offences involved serious and persistent class A drug supply, a significant scale of operation and offending while on bail. Those features had to be balanced against the substantial mitigation accepted in the basis of plea, including homelessness, drug addiction, coercion, debt and threats. The restrictive conditions of custody during the pandemic could also be taken into account: [21]–[26].
3. Scale of offending charged. The court applied the principle in R v Twisse [2001] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 9. A sentencing judge must not sentence for offending on a scale beyond that charged. The appellant’s admission that he sold approximately £2,000 of drugs daily could nevertheless be considered when assessing his role and awareness of the scale of the operation: [24].
4. Disposition. With some hesitation, the court concluded that six years after credit for plea did not sufficiently allow for totality. The appeal was allowed. The concurrent three-year sentences on the second indictment were quashed and replaced by concurrent two-year sentences, remaining consecutive to the three-year sentences on the first indictment. The total sentence was therefore reduced to five years: [25]–[26].

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence allowed. The total sentence was reduced from six years to five years.
2. Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent: On 9 July 2020, the appellant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for four class A drug offences, with sentences consecutive between the two indictments.