R v Gemma Lisa Hindmarch

When consecutive custodial sentences are imposed for related offences, the sentencing court must apply the totality principle. It may sentence each offence by reference to its culpability and aggravating and mitigating features, but must ensure that the aggregate sentence is proportionate. Where an offence falls between guideline categories, the court may select a proportionate sentence by reference to both categories and the aggravating features. Immediate custody is appropriate where the seriousness of the offending requires it and the offender’s history demonstrates poor compliance with court orders.

Following guilty pleas, the Crown Court at Bournemouth sentenced the appellant to 20 months’ imprisonment for burglary and a consecutive term of 10 months for threatening with a bladed article in a public place, contrary to section 139AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The appellant challenged the categorisation and length of the burglary sentence, the consecutive structure, and the weight given to aggravating and mitigating factors. The central issues were whether the sentences complied with totality and whether the custodial sentence should be suspended.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The aggregate sentence of 42 months before credit for guilty pleas was excessive. The burglary sentence was quashed and replaced with 13 months’ imprisonment. The 10-month sentence for count 3 remained in force and the sentences remained consecutive. The total sentence was therefore 23 months.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that the aggravating factors significantly outweighed the mitigation. The appellant’s extensive record, offending while subject to court orders, intoxication, substantial damage and the value of the stolen goods justified a significant increase from the starting point for each offence when considered separately.
3. It was not wrong in principle to impose consecutive sentences. However, the judge was required to observe the totality principle. The judge had not referred to that principle in the sentencing remarks, and the resulting aggregate sentence was too high. An appropriate sentence before credit for the burglary guilty plea was 18 months, having regard to the offence’s position between categories B1 and B2 and the significant aggravating features.
4. The one-third reduction for the guilty plea on count 3 was unwarranted because the appellant could have indicated an intention to plead guilty to an alternative offence earlier. Nevertheless, a reduction for totality was appropriate.
5. The sentence should not be suspended. The seriousness of the offences meant that appropriate punishment required immediate custody. The appellant’s history of poor compliance with court orders also indicated that future compliance was unlikely.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 30 October 2025, in [2025] EWCA Crim 1510, varied the sentences and reduced the total term to 23 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Bournemouth: On 29 August 2025, imposed 20 months’ imprisonment for burglary and a consecutive 10-month term for threatening with a bladed article in a public place.