R v Shakeel Janjua

When sentencing for multiple offences, the court must have express regard to the Sentencing Council Guideline on Totality and stand back from the individual sentences. It must decide whether the aggregate term is just and proportionate; simple addition of notional single sentences is insufficient. Separate offences may justify consecutive terms, but totality may require concurrency where sentences reflect the same underlying conduct. A custodial sentence must also be explained clearly, including the calculation of guilty-plea credit. Failure to explain the calculation, miscalculation of plea credit, or failure to apply totality may require the appellate court to reconsider the whole sentence.

The appellant was sentenced at Birmingham Crown Court on 14 April 2023 to seven years’ imprisonment for dangerous driving, possession of drugs with intent to supply, cannabis possession and failures to surrender. The sentence combined concurrent and consecutive terms arising from indictments in Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Lincoln.

He appealed against sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had failed to explain the calculation, allow proper credit for guilty pleas and mitigation, and apply the principle of totality. The central issues were whether the individual sentences were excessive or incorrectly calculated and whether the aggregate sentence was just and proportionate.

1. Explanation and totality. The court granted permission to appeal. A sentencing judge imposing imprisonment, particularly a substantial aggregate term, must explain in simple language how the sentence has been calculated. The judge need not identify every individual adjustment or use particular expressions. This approach was supported by R v Bailey [2020] EWCA Crim 1719. A judge sentencing for multiple offences must also have express regard to the Sentencing Council Guideline on Totality and assess whether the overall term is just and proportionate.
2. Individual sentences. The 21-month term for the Birmingham indictment was not manifestly excessive. The dangerous driving justified a 20-month starting point, with a limited reduction for the late plea. The three-month term for the Bail Act offence was stern but within the applicable guideline and was properly consecutive.
3. The Wolverhampton drug sentence of three years and six months was appropriate. The offences involved category 3 drug offending, significant quantities, two Class A drugs, previous convictions, offending while on licence and evidence of a drugs line. The dangerous driving sentence, however, was miscalculated. A 24-month starting point reduced by full credit for the prompt plea produced a sentence of about 16 months, before any totality reduction. The imposed term of 18 months was therefore excessive.
4. Totality. The judge had effectively aggregated notional sentences without standing back to assess the result. Consecutive terms were justified for the separate offences and indictments, but the second failure to surrender arose from the same period of absconding and the same reasons as the first. It should therefore have been concurrent. Further reductions were required for totality: the drug sentence was reduced to three years and the Wolverhampton dangerous driving sentence to 12 months.
5. The Birmingham term remained unchanged. The Lincoln term was made concurrent. The driving disqualification remained at five and a half years. The aggregate sentence was reduced from seven years to five years and nine months, and the appeal was allowed to that extent.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 16 January 2024, permission to appeal was granted. The sentence appeal was allowed in part, with the aggregate term reduced to five years and nine months.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: On 14 April 2023, Mr Recorder Stephens sentenced the appellant to an aggregate term of seven years’ imprisonment.