R v Sean O'Sullivan

An appellate court will not interfere with an aggregate custodial sentence unless it is manifestly excessive. Where several planned dwelling burglaries involve serious economic and personal harm, and the offender has extensive relevant convictions, the court may impose a substantial overall term after applying totality and considering personal mitigation.

A disparity argument requires a meaningful comparison of the co-offenders’ overall offending, antecedents, age and plea credit. The court may also clarify the number of qualifying-curfew days directed to count towards a sentence and must specify the discretionary, custody-extension and uplift elements of a driving disqualification.

The appellant appealed, with leave of the single judge, against an eight-year sentence imposed at the Crown Court at Manchester Minshull Street on 28 February 2022.

He had been convicted after trial of a conspiracy involving four dwelling burglaries. He was also sentenced concurrently for a further dwelling burglary and dangerous driving, to which he had pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Burnley. The offences involved planned burglaries of unoccupied homes, theft of vehicles and sentimental property, and substantial distress to the victims.

The appellant contended that the total sentence was manifestly excessive, that insufficient weight had been given to mitigation and a gap in offending, and that there was unfair disparity with his co-offender. The court also addressed the calculation of curfew credit and the components of the driving disqualification.

1. Appeal dismissed. The eight-year custodial term was not manifestly excessive. Each dwelling burglary justified a starting point of three years because of the planning, organisation, serious loss and personal harm. The appellant’s extensive previous convictions materially aggravated those starting points.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to reject the submission that the offending was a one-off relapse after a gap in criminality. The further burglary in October 2018 and the conspiracy between January and March 2019 showed persistent offending over several months. She was required to ensure that the overall sentence reflected all four conspiracy burglaries, the further burglary and the dangerous driving, while applying totality. She had also taken the advanced personal mitigation into account.

3. There was no unfair disparity with Farrell. Although Farrell was sentenced for more offending, he received a longer overall sentence and was entitled to greater plea credit. The offenders also differed in age and the extent of their previous convictions.

4. The court confirmed, consistently with R v Hoggard [2014] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 42 and R v Cox [2019] 4 WLR 88, that 356 days should count towards the sentence for the qualifying curfew.

5. To comply with R v Needham and others [2016] 1 WLR 4449, the court clarified the driving disqualification: the discretionary period was 12 months, the extension under section 35A was four and a half months, and the section 35B uplift was 37 and a half months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal against sentence and clarified the curfew-credit direction and the components of the driving disqualification.

• Crown Court at Manchester Minshull Street: On 28 February 2022 imposed eight years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to burgle, with concurrent sentences for a further dwelling burglary and dangerous driving.