REGINA v JASON BRIAN WOOD

In sentencing appeals, the final sentence on each count must be pronounced in open court. A later administrative adjustment of individual sentences to give effect to a global totality reduction is illegitimate, particularly where the recorded figures do not match the sentences pronounced. Consecutive sentences for offences arising from one incident are not legally barred, but the decisive question is whether the sentences, taken together and overall, satisfy totality. The Court of Appeal may substitute a lower sentence where the figures are excessive in light of the guideline, circumstances and the fact that the offences are attempts. Where an offender is already disqualified until passing an extended test, a further order is unavailable; the order must be quashed and statutory penalty points imposed, absent special reasons.

The appellant appealed, by leave, against a total sentence of nine years and four months imposed by the Crown Court at Canterbury after guilty pleas to offences on two indictments and matters committed for sentence. The recorded sentences did not correspond with the Recorder’s oral pronouncements, following an administrative attempt to apply an overall totality reduction. The appellant also challenged consecutive sentences for two attempted grievous bodily harm offences and the sentence imposed for the drug offence. The appeal further raised the validity of a further driving disqualification when an earlier order already operated. The central issues were the legality of the sentencing procedure, totality, proportionality and the proper driving-related orders.

The appeal was allowed in part.

1. The court held that the final sentence on each count must be pronounced in open court. The subsequent administrative alteration of individual sentences to achieve a global totality figure was illegitimate, particularly because the recorded figures did not correspond precisely with the sentences pronounced. The court relied on R v Whitwell [2018] EWCA Crim 2301; [2019] 1 Cr App R(S) 29.
2. Although concurrent sentences might have been orthodox for the two attempted grievous bodily harm offences, the Recorder was not legally barred from imposing consecutive sentences. The governing consideration was totality, both in relation to those offences and to the overall sentence.
3. The sentences for the attempted grievous bodily harm offences were too high having regard to the circumstances, the relevant guideline and the fact that the offences were attempts rather than substantive section 18 offences. The court substituted five years and six months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The other custodial sentences were substantially maintained, producing an overall sentence of eight years and four months’ imprisonment.
4. The appellant was already disqualified from driving until passing an extended retest. Under section 36(7) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the Recorder could not impose a further disqualification, so that order was quashed. In the absence of special reasons, seven penalty points were ordered under sections 44 and 28 of that Act. The court concluded that the endorsement did not infringe section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 5 July 2022, the court allowed the appeal in part, substituted an overall sentence of eight years and four months, quashed the further driving disqualification and ordered seven penalty points.
2. Crown Court at Canterbury: On 27 January 2022, the Recorder imposed a total sentence of nine years and four months and disqualified the appellant from driving until passing an extended test.