Shadbolt, R. v

Sentencing must reflect totality where several offences form one course of conduct. There is no inflexible rule requiring concurrent or consecutive sentences. Related offences that do not individually cross the custody threshold may be used as factual context and aggravating features of the principal offence, and may justify an upward adjustment from the guideline starting point. They should not automatically attract separate custodial terms where the principal sentence already reflects the overall seriousness. Under the assault occasioning actual bodily harm guideline, serious injury and particular vulnerability may establish greater harm, while lack of premeditation may indicate lower culpability. The final sentence must avoid a manifestly excessive aggregate sentence.

After pleading guilty before magistrates, the appellant was committed to the Crown Court at Aylesbury for sentence. HHJ Rochford imposed consecutive terms totalling 48 weeks for going equipped for theft, theft and assaults, including assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The appellant appealed by leave of the single judge.

The appeal concerned whether the sentencing judge had double counted the victim’s vulnerability, whether the related offences crossed the custody threshold, and how the principle of totality should be applied to offences arising from connected conduct.

The court, in a judgment delivered by Mrs Justice Farbey, allowed the sentence appeal and substituted a six-month custodial sentence for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm. No further penalty was imposed for the other offences.

1. Totality. The offences committed at the Sainsbury’s store formed part of a single course of conduct. There is no inflexible rule governing whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive. However, the consecutive sentences imposed for the lesser offences caused the sentencing judge to lose sight of totality. The assaults on Peter Garner and the security guard, and the theft, did not individually reach the custody threshold. The subsequent theft and going equipped offence were also relatively minor and did not warrant separate custody.
2. Assessment of the principal offence. The court applied the assault occasioning actual bodily harm guideline. Serious injury and the victim’s particular vulnerability placed the offence in the greater-harm category. Lack of premeditation indicated lower culpability. The other contemporaneous offences could justify a significant upward adjustment from the starting point, not because they independently crossed the custody threshold, but because they formed the factual context and aggravating features of the principal assault. The planned theft, the COVID-19 context, the victims’ age and vulnerability, the assault on a security guard at work, previous convictions and mitigation were all considered.
3. Sentence substituted. The combined seriousness meant that neither a fine nor a community order was appropriate for the principal assault. The least sentence justified before credit for the guilty plea was nine months. A one-third reduction produced six months. Having reflected the overall seriousness in that sentence, the court imposed no further penalty for the remaining offences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2021] EWCA Crim 662: allowed the sentence appeal, quashed the aggregate sentence and substituted six months’ imprisonment for the principal assault, with no further penalty for the other offences.
• Crown Court at Aylesbury — On 14 January 2021, HHJ Rochford imposed consecutive sentences totalling 48 weeks following guilty pleas.