Peters, R. v

Where related offences arise from the same offending, concurrent sentences will ordinarily be appropriate. If one offence instead increases the sentence for another, the resulting uplift must properly reflect any available credit for an early guilty plea.

In sentencing a young offender, the court must remain alert to learning difficulties and mental-health conditions. Their effect depends on the evidence, but even mild learning difficulties may require a proportionate downward adjustment where they bear on culpability or the just sentence.

The appellant, aged 17 at the time, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Teesside to aggravated burglary, dangerous driving and associated summary driving offences. A group had forced entry into an occupied home to steal a valuable motorbike. The appellant was arrested after a dangerous police pursuit on that motorbike and was found carrying a hunting knife.

He received five years’ detention for aggravated burglary and a concurrent six months for dangerous driving. The sentencing judge had increased the aggravated-burglary sentence to reflect the dangerous-driving offence, while treating the concurrent term as credit for the early plea. The appellant appealed, contending that the total sentence was manifestly excessive because insufficient weight had been given to his age, immaturity, mild learning difficulties and plea.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of varying the sentence. The court quashed the five-year sentence for aggravated burglary and substituted four years’ detention.

1. The original starting point was too high. The dangerous driving arose from the same offending as the aggravated burglary and should have been concurrent. Alternatively, if it increased the aggravated-burglary sentence, the uplift had to be substantially reduced to allow proper credit for the appellant’s early guilty plea to dangerous driving. The appellant had received only about 10 per cent credit on the total sentence despite being entitled to a materially greater reduction.
2. The court applied the approach in PS, Abdi Dahir, CM v R [2019] EWCA Crim 2286. A sentencing court dealing with a young offender must be alert to learning difficulties. Although the appellant’s difficulties were mild, they were sufficient to require a minor downward adjustment.
3. An adult starting point of eight years and three months, including a small increase for dangerous driving, was appropriate. Applying the sentencing judge’s 60 per cent age-related reduction produced just under four years and 10 months. A further four months was deducted for learning difficulties, followed by 10 per cent credit for the guilty plea. The resulting sentence was rounded down to four years.
4. The difference from the co-defendant’s five-year sentence was justified by their differing backgrounds and ages, and by the fact that the co-defendant had been convicted after trial. The court also varied the driving disqualification to 36 months, comprising the mandatory 12 months and a 24-month extension under Road Traffic Offenders Act 1998, section 35B. The disqualification remained conditional on passing an extended driving test.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentencing appeal and varied the sentence in [2020] EWCA Crim 66.
• Crown Court at Teesside: On 24 June 2019, imposed five years’ detention for aggravated burglary and six months’ concurrent detention for dangerous driving.