R v Steven Arthur Connolly

When concurrent offences arise from the same events, a sentencing judge may increase the sentence for each offence, or the lead offence, to reflect the total criminality. A substantial departure above the applicable category range nevertheless requires considerable justification. The category range is intended to cover a wide variety of cases, and the statutory maximum is ordinarily reserved for offending of the most serious kind.

Aggravating features already reflected in the offence category should not justify disproportionate further elevation. Where the conduct does not amount to the most serious offending of its type, a sentence at the statutory maximum is inappropriate. Suspension may remain inappropriate despite a reduced custodial term where the offending is serious and follows a recent similar conviction.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to possession of a bladed article and affray. At Teesside Crown Court, he received concurrent sentences of 28 months’ imprisonment for the bladed-article offence and, after correction under the slip rule, 24 months’ imprisonment for affray.

The offences arose when the appellant attended his former partner’s home carrying an axe, caused alarm and distress, attempted to gain entry, and engaged in threatening and disorderly conduct over about 30 minutes. The sentencing judge treated both offences as Category 1A and imposed a notional sentence of 42 months before credit for the guilty pleas.

With permission of the single judge, the appellant challenged the notional sentence as excessive and contended that insufficient weight had been given to the age of most of his previous offending.

1. Appeal allowed to the extent of varying the sentences. The court quashed the sentences of 28 months’ imprisonment for possession of a bladed article and 24 months’ imprisonment for affray. It substituted concurrent sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment on each count.

2. The offences arose from the same events. The judge was therefore entitled to impose concurrent sentences and, under totality principles, to increase the sentence for each offence or for the lead offence to reflect the overall criminality.

3. That entitlement did not justify the notional 42-month sentence. A judge may move outside an identified guideline category range after considering aggravating factors and totality. However, the range covers a wide variety of cases, and a substantial departure from both the starting point and the range requires considerable justification. The maximum sentence should ordinarily be reserved for the most serious offending of its type.

4. The Category 1A starting point for the bladed-article offence already reflected its use to cause serious alarm and distress. That feature also indicated higher harm for affray. Intoxication and the recent similar conviction justified a significant uplift, while ADHD provided some mitigation. Even allowing a further uplift for total criminality, the proper sentence was at, but not beyond, the top of the applicable range.

5. The conduct was serious and distressing but was not among the most serious examples of affray. A notional sentence of 30 months on each count properly reflected the overall criminality. One-third credit for the guilty pleas produced concurrent sentences of 20 months.

6. Although the substituted term could be suspended, immediate custody remained necessary. The offending was serious, followed a recent not-dissimilar conviction outside a former partner’s home, and suspension was inappropriate notwithstanding the appellant’s progress in prison.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 31, allowed the sentence appeal to the extent of quashing the concurrent sentences of 28 and 24 months and substituting concurrent sentences of 20 months.
• Teesside Crown Court: On 9 August 2023, sentenced the appellant after guilty pleas to possession of a bladed article and affray. The affray sentence was later corrected under the slip rule from 28 months to 24 months.