REGINA v CRAIG PETER NEWITT

The totality principle requires the court, where offences committed before an earlier sentence are sentenced later, to consider the sentence that would have been imposed had all offences been dealt with together. The combined sentence must be just and proportionate, and the later sentence must be adjusted if necessary. This assessment may justify concurrent treatment or an effective sentence below a statutory minimum applicable on the later occasion. It does not undermine the policy behind minimum sentences for repeat burglary. The relevant question is whether the resulting total sentence is manifestly excessive in light of all the offending.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against a total sentence of 57 months imposed for two dwelling-house burglaries and associated theft, fraud and vehicle-use offences. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently with an existing 50-month sentence imposed for two other burglaries and dangerous driving committed at about the same time.

The single judge referred the application because the extent of qualifying remand and the effect of totality were unclear. The court obtained the earlier sentencing material and considered whether the combined sentences, assessed as if all the offending had been sentenced together, were manifestly excessive.

Application dismissed.

1. The challenge to the six-year notional sentence after trial for the principal burglary failed. That sentence reflected the totality of the offending on the indictment, including two serious dwelling-house burglaries committed while the occupiers were at home, the theft of two cars, one of which was never recovered, and the aggravating features identified by the Recorder. Appropriate credit had been given for the guilty pleas.
2. The Sentencing Council Guideline on totality requires a court sentencing offences committed before an earlier sentence to consider what sentence would have been imposed if all the offences had been dealt with together. The court must ensure that the resulting total is just and proportionate. If it is not, an adjustment must be made to the sentence imposed on the later occasion.
3. This approach does not undermine the legislative policy behind the minimum sentence in s.314 of the Sentencing Act 2020, even where the application of totality results in a sentence of less than three years on the second occasion. The court referred to R v Sparkes [2011] EWCA Crim 880; [2011] 2 Crim App R (S) 107.
4. The earlier 50-month sentence comprised concurrent sentences for two burglaries and a consecutive seven-month sentence for dangerous driving. By the date of the later sentence, the applicant had effectively served approximately 41 months. The practical total was therefore approximately 98 months. Had all the offending been sentenced together, the two earlier burglaries would have justified at least 18 months each, in addition to the 57 months and seven months for dangerous driving, producing a total of at least 100 months. The sentence therefore sufficiently reflected totality and was not manifestly excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
2. Single judge: The application was referred to the full court because the effect of qualifying remand and the totality of the sentences imposed on the two occasions were unclear.
3. Recorder: On 22 April 2021, a total sentence of 57 months was imposed for the index offences and ordered to run concurrently with the existing 50-month sentence imposed on 29 January 2020 for two other burglaries and dangerous driving.