R v Vincent Place

Consecutive sentences may be proper for distinct offences, but the principle of totality requires the court to adjust the aggregate sentence so that it reflects the overall gravity of the offending. A sentence fixed within a sentencing-guideline category should not exceed the top of its range without an adequate basis. In applying totality, the appellate court may quash one concurrent component and substitute a shorter term so that the overall custodial sentence is proportionate.

R v Vincent Place was a sentence appeal arising from four offences committed in breach of a criminal behaviour order, theft, and possession of a bladed article in a public place. The applicant pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court and was committed to the Crown Court at Bolton for sentence.

HHJ Hudson imposed concurrent sentences for theft and the breaches of the order, but made an eight-month sentence for the bladed-article offence consecutive. The total sentence was 20 months’ imprisonment. The applicant sought an extension of time and contended that the sentence for the more serious breach, and the aggregate sentence, were wrong in principle and manifestly excessive.

The central issues were whether the individual sentence exceeded the applicable guideline range and whether the total sentence properly reflected totality.

1. The court granted the 42-day extension of time and leave to appeal. Although the explanation for delay was unsatisfactory, the applicant had understood that his solicitors had been instructed to appeal, and refusing an extension would risk injustice given the merits.

2. The appeal was allowed in part. There was no error of principle in making the eight-month sentence for possession of a bladed article consecutive to the sentence for breach of the criminal behaviour order. The knife offence remained subject to the mandatory minimum regime in Sentencing Act 2020, section 315.

3. However, totality required an adjustment to reflect the overall gravity of the offending. The applicant’s persistent offending justified immediate custody and an upward adjustment from the starting point, but did not justify a notional sentence for the 4 July breach above the top of the category 2B guideline range. After credit for the guilty plea, the appropriate sentence for that offence was eight months’ imprisonment.

4. Adding that term to the eight-month sentence for the bladed-article offence would have produced 16 months’ imprisonment. Applying totality, the appropriate aggregate sentence was 15 months. The court quashed the 12-month sentence for the 4 July breach and substituted seven months’ imprisonment. No other sentence was adjusted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 1538, allowed the sentence appeal in part, quashed the 12-month sentence for the 4 July 2024 breach of the criminal behaviour order, substituted seven months’ imprisonment, and reduced the total sentence from 20 to 15 months.
• Crown Court at Bolton: On 2 August 2024, HHJ Hudson imposed a total sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment.
• Wigan Magistrates’ Court: On 5 July 2024, following guilty pleas, committed the applicant to the Crown Court for sentence.