Paulius Kriauciunas v R

A sentence is not unjustifiably disparate merely because a co-offender received a lower sentence. The question is whether right-thinking members of the public, aware of all relevant facts and circumstances, would conclude that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice. That is a high test.

The comparison must account for material differences between offenders. These include relevant antecedents and a reduction made to a co-offender’s sentence under the totality principle because of other offending. A professional and sophisticated handling operation may properly be assessed at the highest culpability level, notwithstanding a relatively limited individual role.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Aylesbury to six offences of handling stolen goods. The offences concerned a site used to receive and dismantle stolen vehicles for onward sale, with a total assessed value of £143,000.

On 5 April 2024, Her Honour Judge Tulk imposed concurrent sentences of 42 months’ imprisonment, after applying a 25% reduction for guilty pleas to a pre-discount sentence of 56 months. The appellant appealed against sentence, alleging a wrong assessment of culpability and unjustified disparity with his co-defendant’s sentence.

The central issue was whether the different sentences disclosed an error in the administration of justice.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment was just and proportionate.

2. The judge was entitled to assess the offending as level A culpability under the applicable sentencing guideline. Its professional and sophisticated character supported that assessment. The judge had nevertheless recognised the appellant’s relatively limited role: the pre-discount sentence of 56 months was below the five-year starting point.

3. The court applied the disparity test stated in R v Balfour Beattie [2007] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 65. The question was whether right-thinking members of the public, knowing the relevant facts and circumstances, would regard the difference in sentences as showing that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice. The test is a high one.

4. There were material differences between the two offenders. The appellant’s extensive overseas convictions for dishonesty were a serious aggravating factor, which his co-defendant did not share. Further, the co-defendant’s sentence had been substantially reduced under the totality principle because he was already serving five years’ imprisonment for other offending. The sentencing judge did not have to make an equivalent adjustment for the appellant.

5. Accordingly, the disparity test was not met and there was no basis to interfere with the sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 1142 .
• Crown Court at Aylesbury: On 5 April 2024, the appellant received concurrent sentences of 42 months’ imprisonment for six offences of handling stolen goods.