R v Liam Brown

The totality principle does not require all sentences for related offending to run concurrently. Consecutive sentences are ordinarily appropriate for offences dissimilar in nature, or where concurrent terms would not reflect the overall criminality. The aggregate must nevertheless be just and proportionate. That requirement may be met by reducing each consecutive sentence below the term that might have been imposed if the offence stood alone. Serious, prolonged witness intimidation aimed at preventing prosecution, together with serious domestic abuse, justified consecutive terms and an overall sentence that was not manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty to witness intimidation under section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994 and was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and harassment under section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Crown Court imposed an overall five-year term, comprising consecutive sentences of 21 months, 12 months and 27 months.

Following refusal by a single judge, the applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence. He argued that the witness intimidation sentence was excessive, that the harassment sentence should have been concurrent, and that the aggregate sentence breached the totality principle. The central issue was whether the consecutive sentences and overall term were manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) agreed with the single judge that the proposed grounds were unarguable and refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

1. The totality guideline recognises that consecutive sentences are ordinarily appropriate where offences are dissimilar in nature, including witness intimidation, or where offences are similar but concurrent sentences would not sufficiently reflect the overall criminality. The aggregate of consecutive sentences must remain just and proportionate.
2. The totality principle may be satisfied by reducing each consecutive sentence below the sentence that might otherwise have been imposed if the offence had stood alone.
3. The sentences for the assault and harassment were assessed against harm at or near the boundary between categories 1 and 2, together with the aggravating features. Sentences of about 30 months and 18 months after trial could have been justified if imposed separately. The terms of 21 months and 12 months therefore satisfied totality.
4. The witness intimidation involved high culpability, serious harm, offending over many months, serious threats, pressure on the complainant to lie, and an attempt to prevent the prosecution of serious offences. Even after applying totality and credit for the guilty plea, the consecutive term of 27 months was not manifestly excessive. Nor was the overall five-year sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 31 October 2023, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence in R v Liam Brown, [2023] EWCA Crim 1342.
• Single judge: Refused the original application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 31 January 2023, imposed an overall five-year sentence following the applicant's guilty plea and convictions.