R v Vitalie Tanga

When sentencing a person already serving life imprisonment for a further murder, the court may impose a second life sentence with either a consecutive or concurrent minimum term. If the minimum term is concurrent, it must reflect the overall criminality, time already served, totality and proportionality. A consecutive minimum term is lawful, but the totality principle prevents simply adding the second term to the first. The observation in R v Stewart [2022] EWCA Crim 1063 that consecutive life sentences were impossible was obiter and was not followed. In an Attorney General’s Reference, interference requires a sentence to be unduly lenient, not merely lenient.

The Attorney General referred the sentence imposed at the Crown Court at Birmingham under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The offender was serving a life sentence with a 25-year minimum term for an earlier murder when he was convicted of a second murder committed in custody. For the second murder, the sentencing judge imposed a further life sentence and set an overall minimum term of 27 years and six months, commencing immediately.

The central issues were whether the second life sentence could have a consecutive minimum term and whether the overall sentence was unduly lenient because it added only five years and two months to the earlier minimum term.

The Attorney General’s Reference was allowed to the extent that the minimum term was substituted. The term of 27 years and six months was increased to 32 years and six months.

1. The court applied the principles governing Attorney General’s References stated in Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 1989) 11 Cr App R(S) 517. It could interfere only if the sentencing judge had gone wrong and the sentence was unduly lenient, and it retained a discretion whether to increase the sentence.
2. Under section 384 of the Sentencing Act 2020, a court may impose consecutive indeterminate sentences. A determinate sentence may also run consecutively to an indeterminate sentence with a minimum term. The court may impose a second life sentence on a person already serving life imprisonment and may make the second minimum term consecutive or concurrent.
3. If the second minimum term is concurrent, it must nevertheless reflect the overall criminality. Whatever structure is adopted, the overall sentence must achieve just punishment for all murders being sentenced and remain proportionate, taking account of time already served. Totality prevents a consecutive second term from simply being added without adjustment.
4. The court considered R v Stewart [2022] EWCA Crim 1063; [2022] 4 WLR 86. Its approach to adjusting a minimum term to achieve just punishment and proportionality was applied. However, the statement in that case that a life sentence could not run consecutively to another life sentence was obiter, inconsistent with the relevant statutory guidance, and was not followed.
5. For this 42-year-old offender, the second murder required a minimum term of at least 17 years before any totality reduction. An addition of only five years and two months was therefore unduly lenient. After allowing for totality, the court added ten years to the outstanding part of the earlier minimum term.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the Attorney General’s Reference to the extent of substituting a minimum term of 32 years and six months for 27 years and six months.
2. Crown Court at Birmingham: imposed life imprisonment for the second murder and set the overall minimum term at 27 years and six months.