R v Richard Hunter-Smith

On an appeal against sentence for multiple offences, the Court of Appeal assesses each sentence both individually and in aggregate. An offender cannot isolate one sentence element while attacking others to reduce the total. Where a lead offence is sentenced consecutively to other offences, the lead sentence must reflect the overall criminality, including serious separate offending dealt with concurrently, while totality adjustments may be made at more than one stage. A substantial uplift above a guideline starting point may be justified by the nature of the injury, high culpability features and aggravating circumstances such as relevant previous convictions and offending on licence. The totality principle is satisfied if the combined sentence, after proper reductions, is just and proportionate.

The appellant pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent and was later convicted of aggravated burglary, theft, possessing a bladed article and driving whilst disqualified. The Crown Court at Leeds imposed a total sentence of 21 years’ imprisonment, comprising consecutive sentences for the aggravated burglary and grievous bodily harm offence, with concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.

With leave, the appellant appealed against sentence. He challenged the three-year uplift above the guideline starting point for the grievous bodily harm offence and argued that the aggregate sentence failed to give proper effect to totality. He did not challenge the burglary sentence viewed in isolation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal was unpersuaded that the sentence should be reduced.

2. In an appeal involving several offences, the court must examine each element of the sentence and the sentence as a whole. An offender cannot preserve one aspect of the sentence and challenge others in an attempt to reduce the aggregate sentence.

3. The burglary was the appellant’s fourth such offence and involved several aggravating features, including his leading role, the use of a disguised companion, its commission at night and its commission while he was on licence. Because the burglary was the lead offence and the other offences on the indictment were sentenced concurrently, the burglary sentence had to reflect the overall criminality. The bladed article offence formed part of the burglary, while the other serious offending justified a significant uplift. The one-year uplift above the guideline starting point was therefore modest, particularly because the Recorder had already made a reduction for totality.

4. The initial three-year uplift for the offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 was justified. The permanent amputation of the victim’s thumb placed the case firmly within harm Category 1. High culpability features included group activity, premeditation, use of a highly dangerous weapon and a prolonged assault. The use of the car as a weapon could also have been relied upon. Previous convictions and offending while on licence aggravated the offence, and there was little or no mitigation.

5. The totality principle had been properly applied through the reduction made when sentencing the first indictment and the further one-year reduction on the section 18 sentence. The aggregate sentence was therefore not unjust or disproportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed the appeal against sentence on 23 November 2022. [2022] EWCA Crim 1733
• Crown Court at Leeds sentenced the appellant on 10 June 2022 to a total of 21 years’ imprisonment.