Hedges, R. v

In sentencing for multiple serious offences, the court must apply the principle of totality by standing back from the individual terms and assessing whether the aggregate sentence is just and proportionate. Consecutive sentences may remain appropriate where the offending concerns distinct victims and separate courses of grave conduct. A substantial reduction from the aggregate of the individual appropriate sentences may demonstrate that totality has been sufficiently addressed. An appellate court will not grant leave to challenge sentence where it is not reasonably arguable that the overall term is manifestly excessive.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against a sentence of 26 years’ imprisonment imposed in the Crown Court at Portsmouth on 10 September 2019.

He had been convicted of sexual offences committed in the 1980s and 1990s against his two daughters when they were children, his former wife and his former partner, together with a 2017 offence of attempting to arrange the commission of a child sexual offence. The sentencing judge assessed individual and group sentences totalling 37 years before reducing the overall term to 26 years under the principle of totality.

The applicant contended that insufficient allowance had been made for totality, principally in respect of the offences against his daughters. The issue was whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. It was not reasonably arguable that the 26-year aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge had correctly approached totality. Having identified sentences which would otherwise have totalled 37 years, he stood back and reduced the individual terms and the aggregate sentence to 26 years. That reduction of almost one third sufficiently reflected the principle of totality.

3. Consecutive terms remained justified. The offending involved four separate victims, including the applicant’s two young daughters, and serious sexual offending over a substantial period. The non-penetrative nature of the offences against the children did not prevent them from being very serious offences. They involved abuse of a position of trust and were committed for the applicant’s sexual gratification without regard to the harm caused.

4. The complaint that equal terms had been imposed for offences of different gravity did not assist the applicant. The concurrent and consecutive structure meant that the multiple offending against the second daughter could properly be treated as carrying the consecutive term.

5. Viewed as a whole, the sentence properly reflected the gravity of the offending and the necessary allowance for totality. The application was therefore dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed in [2020] EWCA Crim 800.

• Crown Court at Portsmouth: On 10 September 2019, the applicant was sentenced to 26 years’ imprisonment for multiple sexual offences and an attempt to arrange the commission of a child sexual offence.