R v Daniel Lee Sivyour

When a sentence covers more than one offence, the court must impose a total sentence that reflects all the offending behaviour and remains just and proportionate, whether terms are concurrent or consecutive. Different judges may structure sentences differently; that difference alone does not justify appellate intervention. Alleged disparity with a co-defendant is assessed by asking whether right-thinking members of the public would consider that the appellant has a legitimate sense of grievance. The comparison must account for the offenders’ respective criminality, roles, age and plea timing.

R v Daniel Lee Sivyour concerned an appeal, granted leave by a single judge, against sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Southampton. The appellant had pleaded guilty to offences involving the supply and production of controlled drugs and conspiracy to evade the prohibition on importing Class B drugs. On 22 June 2022 he received a total sentence of 6 years 6 months’ imprisonment.

He argued that the sentencing judge had failed to apply totality and that his sentence was improperly consecutive. He also relied on alleged disparity with the 6 years 8 months’ sentence imposed on co-defendant Stanley Woods. The central issues were whether the total sentence was disproportionate and whether the difference between the sentences gave rise to a legitimate sense of grievance.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed the appeal.

1. Totality. The Definitive Guideline on Totality requires a total sentence for multiple offences to reflect all the offending behaviour and to be just and proportionate. That requirement applies whether sentences are concurrent or consecutive. The overall sentence, rather than the particular structure selected, is the focus.
2. Appellate intervention. The individual offences had starting points of four or four and a half years, with applicable ranges extending to five or seven years. A total sentence of 6 years 6 months, despite very late pleas on some counts, was not disproportionate. Different judges might have structured the sentence differently, but that fact alone provided no basis for interference. Although the sentencing judge had not expressly followed every guideline step, the Court reconstructed the approach and was sure that the sentence was proportionate. It might, if anything, have been merciful. The Court noted that imprisonment would be difficult for the appellant because of his disabilities.
3. Co-defendant disparity. The question was whether right-thinking members of the public would consider that the appellant had a legitimate sense of grievance when the respective criminality was considered. Woods had the greater criminality, but his operations were separate, he was very young at the material times and he pleaded guilty at an early stage. The appellant was older, continued until the last opportunity before pleading guilty on some matters, and had advanced and then abandoned an untenable basis of plea. Those differences justified the sentences imposed and meant that no legitimate sense of grievance arose.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2023] EWCA Crim 47, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
2. Crown Court at Southampton. The appellant pleaded guilty to offences involving the supply and production of controlled drugs and conspiracy to evade the prohibition on importing Class B drugs. On 22 June 2022, he was sentenced to a total of 6 years 6 months’ imprisonment.