Khan, R v

When separate custodial sentences are consecutive, the aggregate term must satisfy the principle of totality and be just and proportionate. A sentencing judge may make a further reduction to the later sentence for that purpose.

For an offender aged 15 to 17, a sentence in the region of one-half to two-thirds of the adult sentence may be appropriate. The proper point in that range depends on maturity, role and culpability. A guilty plea first entered on the second day of a trial, without an earlier indication, may properly attract only very limited credit. The appellate court will not interfere unless the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The appellant had received three years and nine months’ detention for a serious domestic burglary committed in 2018. He was later sentenced to four years’ custody, consecutive to that term, for a 2016 conspiracy involving eight domestic burglaries, three attempted burglaries and making off without payment. The aggregate sentence was seven years and nine months.

He sought an extension of time and leave to appeal the first sentence. He also appealed the later sentence, contending that the adult starting point was excessive, insufficient allowance had been made for youth and delay, the five per cent guilty-plea reduction was inadequate, and the overall term breached totality. The central issue was whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. The court refused the renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal the first sentence, and dismissed the appeal against the second sentence. The total sentence of seven years and nine months was just and proportionate.

2. The five-year pre-plea sentence for the 2018 domestic burglary was fully justified. It was a planned and serious home invasion by a team of burglars. The offenders targeted valuable vehicles, confronted the householders, and committed the offence while a child was present. The appellant had a leading role and a relevant previous domestic-burglary conviction. Proper allowance had already been made for his youth.

3. An adult starting point of eight years for the 2016 conspiracy was amply justified. The appellant admitted direct involvement in eleven domestic burglaries or attempted burglaries within a wider, planned and commercial-scale conspiracy. The sentencing judge correctly applied the guideline for children and young people. At 17 and a half, and being streetwise and an active participant rather than a mere follower, a reduction to two-thirds of the adult sentence was appropriate.

4. A five per cent reduction for plea was within the sentencing judge’s discretion. No guilty plea had been indicated before trial, four weeks of court time had been reserved, and the appellant’s plea was entered on the second day. The trial had begun even though the jury had not heard the case opened. The court considered that the judge was best placed to assess the appropriate reduction.

5. The judge had properly applied totality. He reduced the sentence for the conspiracy from the otherwise appropriate level of five years to four years to reflect the sentence already being served. The resulting aggregate term was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

6. The court also directed correction of the Crown Court record. The correct 41-month driving disqualification comprised a discretionary period of 24 months, a four-and-a-half-month extension under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and a 12-and-a-half-month uplift under that Act.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused an extension of time and leave to appeal the first sentence, dismissed the appeal against the second sentence, and directed correction of the driving-disqualification record.
• Crown Court at Leeds: on 10 July 2019, HHJ Rose imposed three years and nine months’ detention for domestic burglary. On 27 November 2019, HHJ Stubbs QC imposed four years’ custody, consecutive, for conspiracy to burgle dwellings.