R v Dwayne Neil

In sentencing for numerous offences committed in a short period, the court must apply totality to reach a custodial term that is just and proportionate to the offending as a whole. A purely arithmetical aggregation of separate sentences may be inappropriate, particularly where related offences should be considered collectively.

Sentencing remarks should identify provisional sentences, the post-trial sentences after aggravation and mitigation, and the application of guilty-plea credit. Failure to do so will not alone justify appellate intervention, but may expose an opaque process and assist in explaining a disproportionate sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Wood Green to 11 offences arising from a sequence of robbery, theft, assaults, racially aggravated harassment and criminal damage committed on one day. The sentencing judge found him dangerous and imposed an extended determinate sentence of 10 years, comprising seven years’ custody and a three-year extended licence period.

He appealed only the length of the custodial term. He did not challenge the dangerousness finding or the use of an extended determinate sentence. The central issue was whether the seven-year custodial term properly reflected guilty-plea credit and totality, or was disproportionate and excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The custodial term of seven years was disproportionate and excessive. It was quashed and replaced with a custodial term of five years. The three-year extended licence period remained unchanged, producing an extended determinate sentence of eight years.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to impose a sentence on the robbery count which reflected the overall criminality, rather than imposing consecutive sentences across the indictment. The judge’s treatment of the appellant’s antecedents and psychiatric evidence was careful, legitimate and correct.

3. However, the sentencing remarks departed from the Sentencing Council model. The judge did not identify provisional sentences within the relevant ranges, the sentences that would have been imposed after trial, or the application of the one-third guilty-plea reduction. Those defects were not independently sufficient to justify intervention, but made the reasoning opaque and helped explain the excessive result.

4. The Court reassessed the maximum reasonable post-trial sentences for the separate offences. Although their arithmetic aggregate would have approached 10 years before plea credit, that method was incompatible with totality. The offences were committed within a few hours on the same day, and the offending against the police officers was substantially of the same broad kind and should be considered collectively.

5. Applying totality, five years’ imprisonment was the just and proportionate custodial sentence for all the offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a five-year custodial term, while maintaining the three-year extended licence period.

• Crown Court at Wood Green: Following guilty pleas to 11 counts, found the appellant dangerous and imposed an extended determinate sentence of 10 years, comprising seven years’ custody and a three-year extended licence period.