R v Alan Anthony Croft

When separate offences justify consecutive sentences, the sentencing court must consider whether a further downward adjustment is required after the sentences are combined. The overall sentence must be just and proportionate and reflect the total criminality. There is no fixed method for applying the adjustment: it may be made to individual sentences before they are added or to the aggregate sentence afterwards. Similar offending across separate incidents, a modest level of street dealing and offending arising from a long-standing drug habit may be relevant to totality, although they do not reduce the seriousness of the offences.

The appellant pleaded guilty to four drug offences and was sentenced by the Crown Court at Liverpool, before His Honour Judge Harris, to a total of 7 years 10 months' imprisonment. The sentence comprised consecutive sentences for possession with intent to supply cocaine in April 2024 and possession with intent to supply cocaine and heroin in October 2024, with concurrent sentences for the October offences.

He appealed with permission, arguing that the sentencing judge had referred to totality but had failed to make a further downward adjustment after imposing consecutive sentences. The central issue was whether the aggregate sentence was just and proportionate in light of the overall criminality.

1. Appeal allowed in part as to sentence. The sentencing judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences for the two sets of offending. However, after making that decision, the judge had to consider whether a further downward adjustment was necessary to ensure that the aggregate sentence was just and proportionate and reflected the overall criminality.
2. The Totality Principles do not prescribe a fixed structure for consecutive sentences. A proportionate adjustment may be made to the individual sentences before they are added together, or after the aggregate sentence has been calculated.
3. The October offences and the April offence involved similar street dealing at a relatively modest level and arose from a long-standing drug habit. Those matters were relevant to whether the total sentence was just and proportionate, although they did not diminish the seriousness of the offending.
4. An overall notional sentence of 11 years before credit for guilty pleas was manifestly excessive. The resulting sentence of 7 years 10 months was not justified. The court quashed the October sentences of 4 years 6 months and substituted concurrent sentences of 3 years on counts 1 and 2, producing an overall sentence of 6 years 4 months. All other orders remained in force.

• Crown Court at Liverpool: His Honour Judge Harris sentenced the appellant on 3 April 2025 to a total of 7 years 10 months' imprisonment.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The sentence was reduced to 6 years 4 months. The appeal was allowed to that extent.