R v Steven Carvell

When sentencing separate offences alongside, or after, a third qualifying burglary carrying a statutory minimum term, the court must apply totality without diluting the effect of that minimum. It should not reduce an otherwise appropriate consecutive sentence, or make it overlap inappropriately, so as to remove the practical impact of the minimum term.

The proper comparison is the aggregate sentence that could lawfully have been imposed had all offences been sentenced together. A guilty-plea reduction from a sentence above the statutory minimum remains subject to the statutory floor.

The applicant pleaded guilty to two non-dwelling burglaries and going equipped. At Leicester Crown Court he received three years’ imprisonment for one burglary, with concurrent sentences for the other offences. That term was consecutive to a three-year sentence imposed in June 2023 for, principally, a third-strike domestic burglary.

He sought to appeal on the basis that prosecutorial delay and totality required a larger reduction, or that the later sentence should overlap the earlier one. The central issue was whether those steps would improperly reduce the effect of the statutory minimum applicable to the earlier domestic burglary.

1. The court refused an extension of time and leave to appeal, and dismissed the appeal. The three-year consecutive sentence was not manifestly excessive.

2. The June 2023 sentence concerned a third qualifying burglary. Section 314 of the Sentencing Act 2020 imposed a minimum term of three years. Section 73 restricted the guilty-plea reduction from that minimum. Although a higher notional sentence may attract a larger discount, the resulting term cannot fall below 80 per cent of the minimum. The court applied Bray [2007] EWCA Crim 979 in reaching that conclusion.

3. Totality could not be used to dilute the effect of that minimum term. The Totality Guideline likewise required the court not to reduce an otherwise proper consecutive sentence for other offending so as to remove the impact of a mandatory minimum sentence.

4. The January 2024 offending independently justified a three-year sentence. It was separate offending, committed while the applicant was under investigation and on licence, and was aggravated by his extensive record. There was negligible personal mitigation. A slight totality reduction was appropriate, but a greater reduction or substantial overlap would have undermined the earlier minimum term.

5. If all offences had been sentenced in June 2023, the later matters would still have justified three years and the third-strike burglary would have required at least two years and five months. An aggregate sentence of at least five years and five months would therefore have been required. A total of six years was accordingly not arguably excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused an extension of time and leave to appeal, and dismissed the appeal in [2024] EWCA Crim 1256.

• Crown Court at Leicester: on 25 January 2024 imposed three years’ imprisonment for non-dwelling burglary, with concurrent terms for going equipped and a further burglary; the three-year term was consecutive to the June 2023 sentence.

• Leicester Magistrates’ Court: on 28 December 2023 committed the applicant for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020 after his guilty plea to non-dwelling burglary.