R v TREHMAYNE CLARKE

In an Attorney General’s reference against an allegedly unduly lenient sentence, the Court of Appeal may intervene only where the sentence falls outside the range that a judge, applying all relevant factors, authority and sentencing guidelines, could reasonably consider appropriate. A sentencing judge may assess separately prosecuted offences together for totality, decline to impose an aggregate sentence that would be unjust or disproportionate, and make proper reductions for terms already served and sentences that would not have been consecutive if dealt with together. A sentence can be lenient without being unduly lenient.

This was an application by the Attorney General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 concerning the sentence imposed on Trehmayne Clarke at Stafford Crown Court on 20 January 2023.

Clarke had pleaded guilty to a Stafford drug-supply conspiracy and to Cambridge drug-supply offences, with a related knife offence. The sentencing judge applied the relevant guilty-plea reductions and imposed an overall sentence of five years and 11 months, with the Cambridge sentence concurrent. The Attorney General contended that the final reductions for totality and previous sentences made the sentence unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the sentence crossed the threshold for appellate intervention.

The court had announced that it dismissed the application and gave these reasons.

1. The governing test was whether the sentence fell outside the range of sentences which a judge, applying their mind to all relevant factors and subject to the authorities and sentencing guidelines, could reasonably consider appropriate. The court adopted and applied the test stated by Lord Lane CJ in Attorney General’s Reference No 5 of 1989 11 Cr. App. R. (S) 489.
2. The sentencing exercise was difficult because substantial offending had been prosecuted separately, one sentence had already been served, and there had been significant delay. The judge was entitled to assess the offences together for totality and to conclude that adding the Stafford and Cambridge sentences would produce an unjust and disproportionate aggregate sentence.
3. The judge was entitled to reduce the sentence by the term already served for the earlier drug offending and to reflect that the separately sentenced bladed-article offence would probably have attracted a shorter or non-consecutive sentence if all matters had been sentenced together. The guilty-plea reductions complied with the applicable guideline. The judge was also right not to disapply the mandatory minimum for the Cambridge drug offences.
4. The sentence before the reductions for the previous terms and guilty pleas was 14 years and three months. It was lenient, but it did not fall outside the permissible range. The sentence was therefore not unduly lenient and the court should not interfere.

The application was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On an application under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court dismissed the reference: [2023] EWCA Crim 483.
• Crown Court at Stafford: On 20 January 2023, Her Honour Judge Crabb imposed an overall sentence of five years and 11 months’ imprisonment for the Stafford and Cambridge offences, with the Cambridge sentence concurrent.