R v Duane Dunn

When consecutive sentences are permissible for separate serious offences, the court must still assess the aggregate sentence under the Sentencing Council Guidelines on Totality. The total must reflect all the offending, aggravating features and mitigating features, while remaining just and proportionate. A substantial custodial term may be required, but a reduction is necessary where consecutive sentences produce an excessive overall term. The totality exercise concerns the combined sentence, not merely whether each individual sentence falls within its guideline range.

Following a trial in the Crown Court at Reading, the appellant received seven years and five months’ imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He received a further one year and 10 months for threatening a person with a bladed article in a public place, to be served consecutively, producing a total sentence of nine years and three months.

Permission to appeal was granted on the issue of totality. The central question was whether, although consecutive sentences were permissible in principle, the aggregate sentence was just and proportionate to the offending.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence.

1. The sentencing judge was required to follow the Sentencing Council Guidelines on Totality unless satisfied that doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. Consecutive sentences were permissible in principle because the offences were separate, occurred on different days and at different locations, and involved different victims.
2. That conclusion did not determine the total sentence. The overall sentence had to reflect all the offending behaviour, together with the aggravating and mitigating features, and had to remain just and proportionate.
3. The offences were both serious and involved the use of a knife. A substantial custodial sentence was therefore required. Nevertheless, the aggregate sentence of nine years and three months required reduction to ensure proportionality.
4. The Court reduced the sentence for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm from seven years and five months to seven years. It reduced the consecutive sentence for threatening a person with a bladed article in a public place from one year and 10 months to one year and six months. The total sentence was therefore reduced by nine months to eight years and six months.

The sentences under appeal were quashed and substituted with the revised consecutive sentences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2024] EWCA Crim 1651 — allowed the appeal, quashed the sentences and substituted consecutive sentences totalling eight years and six months.
• Crown Court at Reading: on 16 April 2024 imposed consecutive sentences of seven years and five months and one year and 10 months, totalling nine years and three months.