R v Jake Goodspeed

When consecutive sentences are imposed for separate serious offences committed at different times, the totality adjustment will ordinarily be modest. A sentencing judge should identify separately the reduction made for totality, although an imperfect method does not invalidate the sentence if the judge has in substance made a sufficient allowance. The court assesses the sentence overall, including culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, guilty plea, offending while on bail and relevant disparity. Significant involvement in a sophisticated category 2 drug conspiracy, aggravated by a previous Class A drug-trafficking conviction and offending while on bail, may justify a sentence at or near the top of the guideline range.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Ipswich to section 18 wounding, conspiracy to supply cocaine and possession of criminal property. On 25 January 2023, HHJ Levett sentenced him to 4 years 9 months for the wounding and a consecutive 4 years 10 months for the drug conspiracy, producing a total sentence of 9 years 7 months.

He appealed against sentence. The principal issue was whether the judge had made a sufficient allowance for totality, particularly in fixing the sentence for the drug conspiracy. Issues of sentence disparity with other participants were also raised.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentences were neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
2. The section 18 wounding was properly placed in category B2. Given the serious facial injury and the appellant’s previous convictions for violence, the sentence of 4 years 9 months was generous and well within the applicable range.
3. The drug conspiracy was properly treated as a category 2 conspiracy involving a significant role. The appellant held the phone and participated in a sophisticated enterprise. The sentencing judge’s general observations, including the reference to R v Ajayi [2017] EWCA Crim 1011, were relevant to the assessment of role and culpability.
4. The previous Class A drug-trafficking conviction, for which the appellant had served 28 months, and participation in the conspiracy while on bail for the serious wounding were significant aggravating factors. Taken together, they justified a sentence towards or at the top of the guideline range, namely 10 years before appropriate reductions.
5. The judge had made an allowance for totality by selecting the bottom of the recommended range before applying credit for the guilty plea. The court accepted that this was not the conventional approach and did not recommend it. The better practice is to identify separately the amount of the reduction for totality. Nevertheless, the allowance made was sufficient. The shorter period of the appellant’s actual involvement and mitigating factors did not justify a reduction of more than about 3 years 6 months from the notional 10-year sentence.
6. Because the offences were separate, serious offences committed at different times, any totality reduction would properly be modest. The sentences of other participants were not shown to be directly comparable because their antecedents and aggravating circumstances differed or were unknown.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 16 May 2023, the court dismissed the appeal against the sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Ipswich.
• Crown Court at Ipswich: On 25 January 2023, HHJ Levett imposed a total sentence of 9 years 7 months, comprising consecutive terms of 4 years 9 months for wounding and 4 years 10 months for the drug conspiracy.