R v Jason Heath

When sentencing for multiple offences, the court must ensure that the aggregate sentence is just and proportionate by properly applying the principle of totality. Consecutive sentences may be appropriate, but an express reference to totality does not suffice if the overall sentence remains disproportionate. Relevant mitigation and aggravation must be assessed at the appropriate stages, including the effect of old convictions, the offender’s role and scale of offending, addiction-related conduct, and realistic rehabilitation prospects. Where the resulting sentence is manifestly excessive, the appellate court may quash the sentences and substitute a proportionate sentence.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence after the single judge refused leave. In the Crown Court at Chelmsford, he had pleaded guilty to four offences involving the supply, and possession with intent to supply, class A drugs. The offences were committed while he was on bail. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent sentences of 41 months on two counts and consecutive sentences of 51 months on two others, producing a total sentence of seven years and eight months.

The appeal alleged that the judge had failed to give proper effect to totality and that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the consecutive sentences, guilty-plea reduction and relevant aggravating and mitigating features had been properly reflected in the total sentence.

Appeal allowed. The court granted leave to appeal and concluded that the total sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had failed to give proper effect to the principle of totality.

1. The sentencing judge had identified the correct guideline category, for which the starting point was four and a half years’ imprisonment. The aggravating features were correctly stated, and consecutive sentences for separate offences were appropriate. However, the inference from the guilty-plea reduction and the judge’s comments on totality was that the notional sentence after trial exceeded 10 years. That was far too high in the circumstances.
2. The offending fell within the lower part of the significant-role category. The applicant acted alone, on a relatively modest scale. The seriousness was reduced because the supply was connected with his own addiction and at least some drugs were supplied to people who were already addicted. The aggravating effect of his previous convictions was significantly reduced by their age. His determined efforts to overcome addiction and his realistic prospects of rehabilitation constituted personal mitigation of real weight.
3. Those matters should have been considered, ideally before the guilty-plea reduction at step 5 and when applying totality at step 6. The court assessed four years after trial for counts 1 and 2, reduced to 41 months for the pleas, and four and a half years after trial for counts 4 and 5, reduced to 46 months. The resulting 87 months required a further reduction for totality. The appropriate total was 74 months, or six years and two months.

All sentences imposed below were quashed. The court substituted concurrent sentences of 34 months on counts 1 and 2, and concurrent sentences of 40 months on counts 4 and 5, the latter being consecutive to the sentences on counts 1 and 2. A representation order was granted.

• Crown Court at Chelmsford: On 10 October 2023, Mr Recorder Clegg KC imposed a total sentence of seven years and eight months for four drug-trafficking offences.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the renewed application, leave was granted and the appeal was allowed. The sentences were quashed and substituted with a total sentence of six years and two months: [2024] EWCA Crim 970.