R v Kristos Vanyai-White

Concurrent sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where offences arise from the same incident or facts, particularly where they are committed against the same person. This is especially so where assessing the seriousness of one offence inevitably requires consideration of the other. Consecutive sentences should not result in double counting or produce a global term exceeding the statutory maximum applicable to each offence. The court may treat one offence as the lead offence and impose a concurrent sentence for the related offence, while taking account of aggravating and mitigating features.

Following a jury trial in the Crown Court at Bristol, the appellant was convicted of affray and threatening another with a bladed article. The offences arose from one incident involving the same complainant. The sentencing judge imposed consecutive terms of two years and three years, producing an aggregate sentence of five years.

With leave, the appellant appealed against sentence. He argued that the offences should have attracted concurrent sentences, that the aggregate exceeded the statutory maximum for each offence, and that alcohol had been wrongly treated as aggravating. The central issue was whether consecutive sentences were justified under the totality principle.

1. Appeal allowed. The offences arose from the same incident and targeted the same person. Whether the threatening-with-a-bladed-article offence was viewed as part of the affray, or the affray as relevant context for the threat, assessment of the seriousness of either offence inevitably required consideration of the other.
2. Under the totality guideline, concurrent sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where offences arise from the same incident or facts, or where there is a series of offences of the same or similar kind, especially when committed against the same person. Those considerations applied in this case.
3. The consecutive sentences caused double counting, despite the sentencing judge's stated intention to avoid it. They also produced a global term exceeding the statutory maximum for each offence. The sentence was therefore wrong in principle and could not stand.
4. On a fresh sentencing exercise, the affray was treated as the lead offence. Its two-year starting point was increased to two years and nine months by the aggravating feature arising from count 2 and the appellant's previous convictions. The court accepted that the limited consumption of alcohol added no aggravation and took account of the mitigating features.
5. The consecutive sentences were quashed. A sentence of two years and nine months was substituted on count 1, with a concurrent sentence of two years on count 2. Under section 225 of the Sentence Code, the substituted sentences started immediately and ran concurrently with the recall period.

• Crown Court at Bristol: Following conviction after trial, the appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of two years for affray and three years for threatening another with a bladed article.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On appeal against sentence, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the consecutive sentences and substituted concurrent terms. The decision is reported at [2025] EWCA Crim 1417.