R v Anthony Douglas

A sentencing court must explain both its reasons for sentence and its effect. It must identify the applicable guideline category and give the defence an opportunity to address any proposed categorisation higher than that advanced by the prosecution.

Guidelines remain the primary sentencing guide. An offender’s extensive record may justify a proportionate upward adjustment, but it does not justify disregarding the guideline range unless departure is in the interests of justice. Under the totality principle, a statutory minimum sentence should ordinarily be consecutive where concurrency would improperly undermine that minimum.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to going equipped for burglary, possession of a bladed article and possession of amphetamine. He was found with a blade, drugs and several keys, including a key capable of opening communal areas in residential buildings. He had a lengthy record for burglary and related offences.

At a committal for sentence in the Crown Court at Swansea, sitting at Carmarthen, the Recorder imposed concurrent terms totalling 21 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against the sentence, contending that the term for going equipped was manifestly excessive. The central issues were the proper guideline category, the permissibility of departing from it, and totality in respect of the statutory minimum sentence for the bladed article offence.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court quashed the 21-month sentence for going equipped for burglary and substituted ten months’ imprisonment. That term was to run consecutively to the six-month term for possession of a bladed article, producing a total of 16 months’ imprisonment. The concurrent one-month term for possession of amphetamine remained undisturbed.

2. Section 52 of the Sentencing Act 2020 required the Recorder to explain the reasons for the sentence and its effect. The Recorder should have identified the guideline category. If he was considering a higher category than the prosecution proposed, he had to alert the defence and allow submissions.

3. The court accepted that the offence fell within higher culpability category A and greater harm. The number and nature of the keys provided a sufficient evidential basis for greater harm, although the offending was at the lower end of category A because it lacked the sophistication and organisation found in professional or organised acquisitive crime.

4. The appropriate starting point was 12 months’ custody. The appellant’s record and conduct on arrest justified an increase to 15 months before credit for plea, but did not justify any departure from the guideline range. A pre-plea term of 31 months was startling and manifestly excessive. Applying the one-third guilty-plea reduction produced ten months.

5. The concurrent six-month sentence for the bladed article offence improperly undermined its statutory minimum. Under the totality guideline, such a sentence should ordinarily be consecutive where concurrency would defeat the minimum. The sentence was therefore restructured accordingly.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By judgment dated 7 December 2023, [2023] EWCA Crim 1709, the court allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing the 21-month sentence for going equipped and substituting a total sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Swansea, sitting at Carmarthen: On 6 June 2023, the Recorder imposed concurrent sentences totalling 21 months’ imprisonment following committal for sentence.