Gareth Lambert v R

Where consecutive sentences are imposed for offending against separate victims, the overriding principle of totality requires the aggregate sentence to reflect the offending as a whole and to be just and proportionate. A court should assess overall harm and culpability, the aggravating and mitigating features of the offences, and mitigation personal to the offender. It will usually be insufficient simply to add notional single sentences.

An aggregate sentence may be manifestly excessive where the guideline starting points already account for significant features of the offending and substantial mitigation has not been adequately reflected.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Caernarfon of two rapes, contrary to section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and one sexual assault, contrary to section 3(1) of that Act. The offences concerned two women known to him and occurred on separate occasions at his flat.

The sentencing judge found him dangerous and imposed consecutive extended determinate sentences for the rapes. The resulting sentence was 18 years’ imprisonment followed by six years’ extended licence.

On appeal against sentence, the appellant did not challenge categorisation, dangerousness, or the use of consecutive sentences. The issue was whether the notional single sentences and the limited reduction for totality rendered the overall custodial term manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentences imposed for the two rape counts and substituted an overall extended determinate sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment with an extended licence period of four years.

2. The original judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences because there were two separate victims. However, the totality principle required an overall sentence that reflected all the offending, including overall harm and culpability, aggravating and mitigating features, and personal mitigation, and that was just and proportionate. With consecutive sentences, that result will usually not be achieved simply by adding notional single sentences.

3. The notional sentence for the first rape was too high. The applicable guideline starting point was eight years’ custody. Although the domestic-abuse context justified some uplift, the sentence was near or beyond the top of the applicable range before sufficient allowance for significant mitigation.

4. The notional sentence for the second rape was also too high. Its guideline starting point was ten years. The recording placed culpability only just within category A and was immediately deleted. The necessary uplift for the associated sexual assault did not justify a sentence of about 12 years before mitigation.

5. The court recognised the grave and traumatic offending. But vulnerability, degradation, the sustained nature of the second rape and serious psychological harm were already reflected in the guideline starting points. Significant mitigation included the appellant’s relative youth, absence of relevant previous offending, lack of subsequent offending, career consequences and young family. An 18-year custodial term with six years’ extended licence was therefore disproportionate and manifestly excessive.

6. The substituted sentences were six years and six months’ imprisonment with two years’ extended licence on count 1, and seven years and six months’ imprisonment with two years’ extended licence on count 2, consecutive. All other elements of the sentence remained undisturbed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted lower extended determinate sentences: [2025] EWCA Crim 137.
• Crown Court at Caernarfon — Following jury convictions, imposed consecutive extended determinate sentences producing an overall term of 18 years’ imprisonment and six years’ extended licence.