R v Gurraj Singh Matharu

When resentencing for offences across several indictments, the court must apply totality and correct any count which makes the aggregate sentence manifestly excessive. A psychiatric diagnosis does not, without sufficiently specific evidence of its effect at the time of the offence, establish reduced culpability.

A mandatory driving disqualification remains effective where the statutory conditions are met. Its extension must be recalculated if the custodial term is reduced. An order requiring an extended driving test cannot be made while the offender is already subject to such a disqualification.

The appellant pleaded guilty to offences arising from four indictments, including being concerned in offers to supply Class A and Class B drugs, possession of a bladed article, dangerous driving, driving while disqualified, assaults occasioning actual bodily harm, and stalking.

On 24 February 2023, the Crown Court at Leeds, before Recorder Kealy KC, imposed a total of six years’ imprisonment and driving disqualification orders. The appellant appealed against sentence. He pursued grounds concerning his role in the Class A drug offence and totality. The court also considered the consequential driving disqualification and extended-test order.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The appellant’s role in the Class A drug enterprise was at the lower end of the significant-role category. Although he must have expected significant financial gain, the evidence did not establish that he had a very good understanding of the operation’s scale. The starting point was four years and six months, subject to reduction because the offence concerned offers rather than completed supply, totality, mental health and his limited involvement.

2. The nominal sentence after trial for that count should have been four years. Applying the guilty-plea reduction produced a sentence of 36 months. The original four-year sentence for that count made the six-year aggregate sentence manifestly excessive. The other sentences were neither individually nor collectively manifestly excessive.

3. The psychiatric evidence did not establish reduced culpability at the specific time of the offending. The report identified a long-standing paranoid schizophrenia diagnosis but was too vague and imprecise to show that the appellant was in a psychotic episode or that the condition reduced his culpability for this offence.

4. The three-year disqualification was obligatory under Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Following the reduction in the custodial total, the extension was reduced to 18 months: six months under section 35A and a consecutive 12 months under section 35B. The order requiring the appellant to remain disqualified until passing an extended test was contrary to section 37(7)(b), because he was already so disqualified, and was quashed.

5. The sentence on count 5 was quashed and replaced with 36 months’ immediate imprisonment. The overall custodial sentence was therefore reduced from six years to five years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence to the stated extent and varied the sentence and driving orders: [2024] EWCA Crim 941.
• Crown Court at Leeds: On 24 February 2023, Recorder Kealy KC imposed a total sentence of six years’ imprisonment, driving disqualification, and related orders.