R v Terrance David Bailey

Where consecutive sentences are imposed for distinct offences, the court must ensure that the overall sentence is just and proportionate. It must not simply add the notional sentences for each count. Where appropriate, totality may be reflected by reducing the individual sentences or by making a global reduction after they have been combined. Personal mitigation, including a substantial period free from offending and a settled family and working life, must also be properly reflected.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to three non-residential burglaries of Co-op stores committed over nine days in May 2023. He and another man forced entry, broke into safes or tills, and stole cash. The total loss, including consequential loss, was just under £22,000.

At Lewes Crown Court, the appellant received consecutive sentences of 14 months’ imprisonment on each count, producing a total of 42 months. He appealed on the grounds that the sentence gave insufficient effect to totality and was excessive in light of his personal mitigation.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the 42-month sentence as manifestly excessive and resentenced the appellant to 30 months’ immediate imprisonment.

2. Although the offences were distinct and consecutive sentences were permissible, the sentencing judge did not make any discernible reduction to reflect totality. The offences were close in time, similar in character and committed in a similar way. Simply adding the notional single sentences was inconsistent with the Totality Guideline and prevented a just and proportionate overall sentence.

3. Totality could have been reflected either by reducing the individual sentences or by applying a global reduction after combining them. The required question was whether the overall sentence, rather than each sentence viewed separately, was just and proportionate.

4. The judge also failed fully to reflect material personal mitigation. Despite a serious record, the appellant had remained free of offending for eight years, had a settled family life and was in work. The original notional sentences remained within the available range, so that point alone would not have justified allowing the appeal.

5. On resentencing, the court adopted a starting point of 12 months for each count. It adjusted the notional post-trial sentence to 18 months for aggravation and mitigation, reduced that to 12 months for the guilty plea, and made a further two-month reduction on each count for totality. It imposed 10 months’ imprisonment consecutively on each count, totalling 30 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — by [2023] EWCA Crim 1542, allowed the sentence appeal, quashed the 42-month sentence and substituted consecutive terms totalling 30 months’ imprisonment.

• Lewes Crown Court — on 4 July 2023, sentenced the appellant to 14 months’ imprisonment on each of three counts of non-residential burglary, consecutively, totalling 42 months.