R v Jordan Murray

When sentencing for offences committed before an earlier sentence, the court must ensure that the aggregate sentence is just and proportionate, taking the earlier sentence into account. The exercise does not require the later sentence to be assessed through the prism of the earlier sentencing exercise where the offences could not have been sentenced together. A careful totality assessment, including an appropriate reduction to the provisional sentence, is sufficient.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Leicester of four conspiracies to bring prohibited items into prison, involving mobile phones, cocaine, cannabis and stanozolol. He was sentenced to four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, consecutive to an existing extended sentence of 20 years imposed for serious firearms and justice-related offences.

A single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant renewed his application and sought a three-day extension of time. The sole proposed ground was that insufficient allowance had been made for totality in light of the earlier sentence.

1. The renewed application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The proposed appeal had no arguable merit.
2. The sentencing judge had correctly identified the relevant Sentencing Council guideline on supplying drugs, notwithstanding the absence of a guideline for offences under the Prison Act 1952. She had assessed the applicant’s role, the harm category, the custodial setting, previous convictions, delay and totality.
3. Although the later offences had been committed before the earlier 20-year sentence, they could not have been sentenced at the same time. They had only recently been charged and sent for trial, and the applicant had thereafter refused to engage with the court process. In those circumstances, there was no proper basis for conducting the 2023 sentencing exercise through the prism of the 2021 exercise.
4. The sentencing judge was required to ensure that the total sentence, taking account of the earlier sentence, was just and proportionate. She had considered totality carefully and reduced the provisional five-year sentence by six months. The resulting sentence was plainly just and proportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence refused.
• Crown Court at Leicester: the applicant was convicted and sentenced to four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, consecutive to an existing sentence.
• Single judge: leave to appeal against sentence refused.