R v Simon Porter

In a sentence appeal, the principle of totality is not confined to making sentences concurrent. It may be addressed by reducing individual terms while ordering sentences for separate offences to run consecutively. The overall sentence must be assessed alongside the seriousness of the offending, the applicable sentencing guideline, any guilty-plea reduction and the offender’s record. Where those matters have been properly considered and the resulting sentence is not manifestly excessive, the Court of Appeal will not interfere.

The applicant pleaded guilty to ten offences of fraud by false representation and two offences of theft. He was sentenced in the Crown Court at Sheffield to consecutive terms of five months’ imprisonment for each fraud, concurrent terms of two months for the thefts, and an aggregate sentence of 50 months’ imprisonment. A single judge refused leave to appeal. The applicant renewed his application, arguing that the consecutive sentences failed to reflect totality and were manifestly excessive.

1. Application refused. The court agreed with the single judge that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the renewed application was not reasonably arguable.
2. The sentencing judge had followed the applicable Sentencing Council guideline. An upward adjustment was made to 12 months for each fraud, followed by the proper one-third reduction for the early guilty plea, producing a notional term of eight months for each offence.
3. Totality was properly addressed by reducing each fraud sentence to five months, ordering the theft sentences concurrently, and ordering the fraud sentences consecutively. The principle did not require all the sentences to be concurrent.
4. The applicant’s extensive record, including 148 fraud and kindred offences and 30 theft and kindred offences, together with the fact that he was on licence, supported the sentence. The Court of Appeal adopted the single judge’s conclusion without adding further reasoning.

• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 16 April 2024, the applicant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 50 months’ imprisonment for ten fraud offences and two theft offences.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The single judge refused leave to appeal. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 160.