R v Ann O’Halloran

When sentencing multiple offences, the totality principle requires the overall sentence to be just and proportionate. There is no inflexible rule governing whether terms should be concurrent or consecutive. Where terms are consecutive, simply adding notional sentences will usually produce an excessive result and ordinarily requires downward adjustment. Where related offences are made concurrent, the sentence must still reflect the totality of the offending, so an upward adjustment may be required. Offences committed within a short period and in the same location may support concurrency, particularly where the relevant circumstances overlap. The Court of Appeal may increase individual component sentences while reducing the overall sentence, subject to Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 11(3).

The appellant pleaded guilty at Wolverhampton Crown Court to one robbery and two domestic burglaries. The robbery involved an elderly victim in a supermarket car park. The burglaries, committed shortly afterwards, involved entering the homes of elderly residents in the same block of flats by deception and stealing property.

The Crown Court imposed consecutive sentences totalling 6 years 3 months and 1 week. The appellant did not challenge the individual sentence lengths or offence categorisation. She appealed on the single ground that the judge had failed properly to apply totality, particularly by making the burglary sentences consecutive to each other. The central issue was the proper structure and overall calibration of the sentences.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The individual robbery sentence and the categorisation of the offences were not challenged and were correctly imposed. The total sentence was nevertheless manifestly excessive because the judge had not properly applied totality.
2. The Totality Guideline contains no inflexible rule on sentence structure. Where sentences are consecutive, it will usually be impossible to reach a just and proportionate result by simply adding notional sentences together. Ordinarily, a downward adjustment is required.
3. The two burglary sentences should have been concurrent. Their commission within a short period, in the same block of flats, with the householder present in each case, pointed towards concurrency rather than consecutiveness.
4. Concurrency still had to reflect the fact that there were two offences. Taking account of the previous convictions, post-sentence supervision and mitigation, the appropriate total notional sentence for both burglaries after trial was 4½ years. After credit of about 20 per cent for the guilty pleas, the appropriate sentence was 3½ years.
5. The burglary sentences were quashed and replaced by terms of 3 years 6 months each, concurrent with one another but consecutive to the 78-week robbery sentence. The resulting total was 5 years. Although the burglary terms were increased, the overall sentence was reduced, satisfying section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal from sentences imposed at Wolverhampton Crown Court on 25 September 2023 was allowed to the extent that the total sentence was reduced. The burglary sentences were quashed and substituted with concurrent terms of 3 years 6 months, consecutive to the robbery sentence, producing a total sentence of 5 years.
• Wolverhampton Crown Court: The appellant had received consecutive sentences of 78 weeks for robbery and 125 weeks for each of two domestic burglaries, totalling 6 years 3 months and 1 week.