R v Ryan Cahill

The totality principle does not require a fixed percentage reduction to each sentence or to every group of offences. Its function is to enable the sentencing judge to impose a sentence which fairly reflects the totality of the offending behaviour.

An appellate court will not interfere merely because another judge might have selected a lower sentence. Permission to appeal should be refused where the sentencing judge was entitled to reach the assessments made and the overall sentence is not manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Lewes to offences including being concerned in the production of cannabis, non-dwelling burglaries, attempted theft, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assaults by beating. On 20 December 2023, the Recorder imposed consecutive sentences for three groups of offending, producing a total of 80 months’ imprisonment.

The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge. He contended that the starting point and uplift for the drug-production offence were excessive, that the account of mistreatment of a man at the production site had been double counted, and that insufficient allowance had been made for totality.

The central issue was whether the individual and overall sentences were manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court agreed with the single judge that it was not arguable that either the sentence for the drug-production offence or the overall 80-month sentence was manifestly excessive.

2. The Recorder was entitled to treat the applicant’s role in the cannabis production as borderline between significant and leading. A 60-month starting point at the top of the significant-role category was open to the Recorder. The further uplift to 72 months was also open to the Recorder because the applicant’s supervision, if not exploitation, of Mr Harris was separate from the assault counts that had been pursued. The court rejected the submission that this involved impermissible double counting.

3. The Recorder expressly reduced the drug-production sentence for mitigation and totality, resulting in 44 months’ imprisonment. The court regarded that reduction as fairly generous. The fact that some judges might have selected a lower figure did not make the imposed sentence excessive.

4. The totality principle does not prescribe a fixed percentage deduction or require reductions across every set of offences. It requires a fair sentence for the whole of the offending. The Recorder had sensibly grouped the numerous offences into three sets. Each contained serious features, and the applicant had played a full part in a serious and consistent pattern of offending. The total sentence fairly reflected that overall criminality.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
• Crown Court at Lewes: on 20 December 2023, the Recorder imposed a total sentence of 80 months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to the relevant offences.