R v Kevin Wood

In sentencing, culpability and harm must be assessed distinctly, but the same act may bear on both where it does so in different ways; that is not double counting. Relevant previous convictions, offending while on bail, and offending during the operational period of a suspended sentence may aggravate sentence. Activation of the suspended sentence punishes the earlier offence and does not duplicate that aggravation. Where loss or damage has already fixed the harm category, it should not ordinarily justify a further increase. The totality principle permits concurrent or consecutive terms and appropriate reductions so that the aggregate sentence is just and proportionate.

Following guilty pleas to offences on three indictments, the appellant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Luton to an aggregate term of 52 months’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence by leave of the single judge. The appeal challenged the categorisation and length of sentences for assaults on emergency workers, a commercial burglary, a school burglary, theft of parcels and further assaults. The appellant also challenged the weight given to aggravating factors and the application of totality. The central issue was whether the individual sentences were wrongly assessed or manifestly excessive.

The appeal was allowed in part. The court rejected the challenges to most of the sentencing decisions, but found two sentences manifestly excessive.

1. Assaults on emergency workers. For the strangulation offence, culpability was properly assessed by reference to the deliberate strangulation, while harm was assessed by its effect on the officer. The use of the same act in those distinct assessments did not involve double counting. The second assault was properly placed in the higher culpability category because it was persistent or prolonged. Previous convictions, the fact that the victims were emergency workers acting in the execution of their duty, and the existence of two victims were relevant aggravating features. Nevertheless, 15 months before credit was manifestly excessive. Six months’ imprisonment was substituted on each count, to run concurrently.
2. Commercial burglary. Offending at night, while on bail and subject to a suspended sentence, group activity and previous convictions were properly treated as aggravating features. Committing a further offence during the operational period of a suspended sentence increased culpability. Activating that sentence punished the earlier offence and did not create double counting. The ground was dismissed.
3. School burglary. The offence was properly categorised as culpability B and harm category 2 because of planning, reconnaissance, the vehicle used and the resulting loss, damage or disturbance. Relevant previous convictions and offending while on bail justified a sentence at the top of the range. The fact that the burglary occurred at a school did not justify a further increase, because the damage associated with the stolen whiteboard had already been reflected in the harm category. Nine months’ imprisonment was substituted for 14 months.
4. Parcel theft and totality. The court upheld the category 3 harm assessment for the theft of 22 parcels valued at more than £500 and found the resulting four-month sentence within the guideline range. The judge had properly applied totality by selecting concurrent and consecutive sentences and making appropriate reductions.
5. The remaining sentences were unchanged. The aggregate sentence was reduced to 43 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 8 October 2025, allowed the appeal in part, quashed the sentences of six months? No. The court quashed two 10-month sentences and substituted six-month concurrent sentences, quashed a 14-month sentence and substituted nine months, and left the remaining sentences unaltered. The total sentence was reduced to 43 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Luton: On 11 April 2025, sentenced the appellant following guilty pleas to offences on three indictments, imposing an aggregate term of 52 months’ imprisonment.