R v Alan Smith

In a sentence appeal, the decisive question is whether the overall sentence, however structured, is manifestly excessive. A sentencing guideline range does not impose an absolute ceiling. A sentence above the range may be justified by the seriousness and features of the offence, provided it remains proportionate and below the statutory maximum.

When assessing the overall term, the court may take account of the nature and scale of all concurrent and consecutive offending, together with totality. A sentence will not be reduced merely because one component might, viewed alone, appear severe where the aggregate sentence properly reflects the offender’s overall criminality.

The appellant pleaded guilty to a non-dwelling burglary arising from a ramraid at a shopping centre, ten theft offences, nine fraud offences contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006, and four thefts from motor vehicles.

At Cambridge Crown Court, the judge imposed four years and seven months’ imprisonment for the burglary. Concurrent sentences for the remaining offending were ordered to run consecutively, producing a total of five years and ten months’ imprisonment.

The appellant appealed by leave of the single judge. He accepted the categorisation of the burglary and the consecutive structure, but contended that the burglary sentence, and therefore the overall term, was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The overall sentence of five years and ten months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. The burglary was a particularly serious ramraid. Although the appellant had participated in one event rather than the wider conspiracy, it involved prior reconnaissance, the use of stolen vehicles with false registration plates, the removal of an ATM containing cash, damage of about £100,000, and a dangerous attempt to evade police. The judge was entitled to conclude that the appropriate sentence after trial was slightly above the upper end of the category 1A guideline range.

3. The category range did not operate as a ceiling. There was a substantial margin between its upper limit and the ten-year maximum sentence for the burglary. The four years and seven months imposed after allowance for the guilty plea was therefore not manifestly excessive.

4. In any event, the appellate court had to assess the aggregate sentence rather than isolate the burglary term. The sentences for the theft, fraud and theft-from-motor-vehicle offences were somewhat generous given the organised nature and scale of that offending. That remained so after allowing for totality and for their consecutive operation. The total term properly reflected the appellant’s overall criminality.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed in [2023] EWCA Crim 1037.

• Crown Court at Cambridge: On 20 January 2023, the appellant received an aggregate sentence of five years and ten months’ imprisonment for burglary and other offences.

• Crown Court at Luton and Luton Magistrates’ Court: The appellant pleaded guilty to the theft and fraud counts at Luton Crown Court and was committed for sentence by Luton Magistrates’ Court for the theft-from-motor-vehicle offences.