R v Harry Culleton

When several offences arise from related circumstances, consecutive sentences are permissible. The governing requirement is totality: the overall sentence must reflect the combined offending, including harm, culpability, aggravating and mitigating factors, and must remain just and proportionate. There is no inflexible rule requiring concurrent sentences. If concurrency is chosen, the sentence for the lead offence may require an uplift to reflect the totality of the offending. Significant quantities of drugs, a weapon and disposal of evidence may justify substantial upward variation. Youth and good character remain relevant mitigation, but their weight depends on the seriousness of the offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine and cannabis with intent to supply, contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. A summary-only offensive-weapon offence was sent to the Crown Court for sentence. On 23 October 2023, the Crown Court at Snaresbrook imposed an aggregate sentence of four years and one month, comprising consecutive sentences for the Class A and Class B drug offences and a concurrent sentence for possession of a baton.

He appealed against sentence, accepting that the individual sentences were not challenged. The central issue was whether concurrent sentences were required because the offences arose from the same circumstances, or whether the aggregate sentence satisfied the principle of totality.

1. Appeal against sentence dismissed. The individual sentences were not wrong in principle. Consecutive sentences were permissible, subject to the overarching principle of totality.
2. Totality requires the overall sentence to reflect all the offending behaviour by reference to overall harm and culpability, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the requirement that the result be just and proportionate. There is no inflexible rule governing whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive. If concurrent sentences are selected, the sentence for the lead offence may be adjusted upwards to reflect the total offending.
3. The offending was properly categorised at level 3, significant role. The large quantities of cocaine and cannabis justified upward adjustment for both drug offences. Possession of the baton and disposal of evidence, through the missing mobile telephone, were further aggravating features. A concurrent structure would have required a further uplift to reflect totality.
4. Youth and, in substance, good character constituted significant mitigation. They did not counterbalance the upward variation justified by the seriousness and aggravating features of the offending. The appropriate variation took the offending towards the top of the range, but the court considered that an overall sentence of at least four years and one month was appropriate. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.
5. The court declared that credit for qualifying curfew was to be calculated under section 325 of the Sentencing Code, amounting on the information before the court to 174 days, subject to correction if the calculation was mistaken. The surcharge was directed to be recorded as stated by the sentencing judge, namely £156; an administrative increase to £228, not announced in open court, had no effect.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2024] EWCA Crim 1128. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court made a declaration concerning qualifying-curfew credit and directed that the surcharge be recorded at the amount announced by the sentencing judge.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 23 October 2023, HHJ Kamill sentenced the appellant to four years and one month’s imprisonment.