R v Lee Patmore

When sentencing for several serious offences, the court must impose a total sentence that reflects all the offending and remains just and proportionate. Totality applies whether sentences are concurrent or consecutive. A sentencing judge need not state a separate mathematical reduction if the structure and level of the sentences show that totality was considered. Concurrent sentences may properly be used where one offence overlaps another, while separate sentences remain appropriate for distinct offending occurring over different periods or in different settings. An appellate court will interfere only where the sentence is manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Teesside to controlling or coercive behaviour, making a threat to kill, inflicting grievous bodily harm, possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, and possessing a firearm while prohibited. He received an aggregate sentence of seven years and four months, comprising consecutive sentences for the controlling or coercive behaviour, threat to kill, and firearm-with-intent offences, with concurrent sentences for grievous bodily harm and possessing a firearm while prohibited.

He appealed against sentence, arguing that the individual sentences were too long and that the sentencing judge had failed to apply totality. The central issue was whether the structure and overall length of the sentence were manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The individual sentences were within the permissible range and the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive.
2. The sentence for controlling or coercive behaviour was permissible. The offending was closer to persistent action over a prolonged period than conduct limited in scope and duration, and was aggravated by the appellant’s previous convictions.
3. The threat-to-kill sentence was also permissible. The offending involved planning, weapons, threats in the presence of a child, a history of violence, threats of significant violence, and a severe impact on the victim, who jumped from a third-floor window.
4. The sentence for inflicting grievous bodily harm was properly made concurrent. That structure demonstrated regard for totality, although the sentencing judge had not expressed the point in terms.
5. The firearm-with-intent offence warranted a substantial sentence because the Taser was armed, pointed at an officer, and created a high risk of severe physical or psychological harm and disorder. The prohibited-possession offence disclosed no separate criminality and was not separately addressed.
6. The Over-arching Sentencing Council Guideline on Totality requires a total sentence for multiple offences to reflect all the offending and remain just and proportionate, whether sentences are concurrent or consecutive. The judge had not simply added the sentences together. Separate sentences were justified for the prolonged controlling behaviour, the distinct domestic offences, and the later Taser incident in the custody unit.
7. Although the sentence was severe, the seriousness of each offence and the use of concurrent sentences where appropriate meant that the court could not say it was manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): R v Lee Patmore, [2023] EWCA Crim 258. Appeal against sentence dismissed.
• Crown Court at Teesside: On 14 October 2022, imposed an overall sentence of seven years and four months, comprising consecutive and concurrent terms as described in the abstract.