REGINA v PAUL CAMARA

For the purpose of deciding whether an extended sentence is available, the appropriate custodial term for a specified offence may reflect the seriousness of that offence together with associated offences that are not specified offences. The statutory definition of an associated offence contains no requirement that it itself be specified. The court may therefore aggregate the offending to determine whether the four-year term condition is met, subject to the statutory maximum and totality. It may not artificially inflate the sentence on the specified offence merely to obtain an extended sentence. A global sentence reflecting the overall offending is permissible where concurrent sentences are imposed and the uplift genuinely reflects the combined seriousness.

Paul Camara pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm, taking a motor vehicle without consent and two breaches of a restraining order. The latter three offences were not specified offences. The Crown Court imposed an extended sentence on the assault count, comprising four years’ custody and one year on extended licence, with concurrent sentences on the other counts.

The appellant argued that the unspecified offences could not be used to reach the four-year threshold for an extended sentence. The issue was whether those offences were associated offences which could be aggregated when identifying the appropriate custodial term.

Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the extended sentence of five years, comprising four years’ custody and one year’s extended licence.

1. Under the Sentencing Act 2020, an extended sentence is available for a specified offence where the statutory conditions are met. The four-year term condition depends on the appropriate custodial term, namely the term which would have been imposed under the general custodial sentencing provision without an extended sentence.
2. The general provision permits the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence or the combination of the offence and one or more associated offences. Section 400 treats offences as associated where, among other things, the offender is convicted of them in the same proceedings. Nothing requires an associated offence also to be a specified offence.
3. The court preferred R v Pinnell; R v Joyce [2010] EWCA Crim 2848; [2012] 1 WLR 17. That authority correctly permits aggregation of specified and non-specified associated offences when assessing the appropriate custodial term, provided the custodial term for the specified offence does not exceed the statutory maximum and totality is respected.
4. R v Casbolt [2016] EWCA Crim 1377 was wrong to the extent that it suggested otherwise. Its vice was the artificial inflation of the sentence for the specified offence merely to enable an extended sentence. That was different from the present case, where the judge imposed a global sentence on the lead count to reflect the overall offending, with concurrent sentences on the other counts.
5. The four-year term was the shortest term commensurate with the combined seriousness of the assault and associated offences. The sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not infringe totality. R v Casbolt remains distinguishable in its sentencing approach, but its contrary legal suggestion cannot stand; R v Pinnell; R v Joyce remains good law.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court held that the Crown Court could aggregate unspecified associated offences when determining the appropriate custodial term for a specified offence and upheld the extended sentence.
• Aylesbury Crown Court: On 2 August 2021, the appellant was sentenced to an extended sentence of five years on the assault count, comprising four years’ custody and one year’s extended licence, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.