R v Keith John Bretherton

In a sentencing appeal, separate and serious offences may properly attract consecutive sentences. The totality principle can be given effect by reducing the sentence on one count and imposing no separate penalty on another. Distinct roles in a conspiracy should be reflected in different starting points, while the timing of guilty pleas may produce closer final sentences because different credit is due. An appellate court will not interfere merely because a different total might have been imposed where the sentencing judge made no guideline error and the total sentence falls within the permissible margin of appreciation.

The applicant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Liverpool to an aggregate term of 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. He received 2 years and 6 months for conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office, followed consecutively by 6 years for possession of cocaine with intent to supply. There was no separate penalty for possession of cannabis. After the Single Judge refused leave to appeal, the applicant renewed his application. He argued that insufficient weight had been given to his secondary role in the conspiracy and that the totality principle had not been properly applied.

The Court agreed with the Single Judge and dismissed the renewed application for leave to appeal.

1. Role in the conspiracy. The sentencing judge properly reflected the different roles of the applicant and the corrupt police officer involved in the conspiracy by adopting different starting points: 3 years for the applicant and 4½ years for the other offender. The closer final sentences were explained by the different timing of the guilty pleas and the resulting difference in credit. The applicant was correctly given a 15 per cent reduction for his later plea.
2. Drug offence. The cocaine offence was properly placed in category 2 by reference to the quantity of cocaine, just under 1.3 kilograms. Treating the applicant as having a significant role, albeit towards the top of that range, was if anything generous to him.
3. Totality. Consecutive sentences were justified for the separate offending. The totality principle was reflected by reducing the sentence on the cocaine count by 12 months, applying the guilty-plea reduction, and imposing no separate penalty for the cannabis count. The resulting total of 8 years and 6 months fell within the sentencing judge’s margin of appreciation. There was no error in the guideline categorisation or in the totality assessment, and there was no merit in the proposed appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the renewed application for leave to appeal was dismissed under [2025] EWCA Crim 1479.
• Single Judge: leave to appeal was refused. The judge considered that consecutive sentences were justified, the guideline categorisation was correct, and the total sentence was not excessive.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: on 18 October 2024, the applicant was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office and 6 years consecutively for possession of cocaine with intent. No separate penalty was imposed for possession of cannabis.