R v Malcolm Paul Blackmore

Deciding whether, and to what extent, an earlier sentence should be taken into account when sentencing later offences is an exercise of judgment. It is not automatic and does not simply require reconstruction of the sentence that would have been imposed had all offences been dealt with together. The court must nevertheless consider the total sentence imposed. The defendant’s responsibility for separate sentencing occasions may be relevant where further offending could have been admitted earlier. A reduction is sufficient where it ensures that the sentence is proportionate overall. Appellate intervention is unwarranted where the sentence is not manifestly excessive and the sentencing judge has properly considered mitigation.

The appellant appealed from the Crown Court at Wood Green against concurrent sentences of 5½ years’ imprisonment for three counts of indecent assault, contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The jury had been unable to reach verdicts on three further counts, and no retrial was sought.

The appellant had previously received a five-year sentence for similar offending against two pupils at the same school. The earlier offending overlapped in time with the present offending. The appeal concerned whether the further sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to totality, the seriousness of the offending, the earlier sentence, and the appellant’s age, health and other mitigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal. It separately quashed the surcharge order because the dates of the offending meant that the surcharge provisions did not apply.

1. Totality. The decision whether, and to what extent, to take an earlier sentence into account is an exercise of judgment. It is not automatic and is not determined simply by considering the sentence that would have been imposed if all offences had been dealt with together. The court must nevertheless have regard to the total sentence imposed. Where the defendant could have admitted further offending when sentenced for the earlier offences, his responsibility for the separate sentencing occasions is relevant.
2. Application. The court assessed the offending overall. The appellant was responsible for eight indecent assaults involving three child victims and a serious breach of trust. The present offending involved repeated assaults over many years and was more serious than the offending resulting in the earlier sentence. A total sentence of 10½ years was not manifestly excessive. The one-year reduction made by the sentencing judge adequately reflected totality and prevented the sentence for the current offences from being disproportionate.
3. Mitigation. The sentencing remarks showed that the judge had carefully considered the available mitigation, including the appellant’s age, health, mental health, character and conduct since the earlier conviction. The court was not persuaded that insufficient weight had been given to those matters.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 1365, the appeal against sentence was dismissed. The surcharge order was quashed.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: The appellant was convicted and sentenced to concurrent terms of 5½ years’ imprisonment on each count.