R v Michael Lawrence

The totality principle requires a sentence that is just and proportionate to an offender’s overall criminality. It does not confer a general reduction for multiple offences. Where a court aggregates sentences for separate but related offending, it must preserve material distinctions between co-offenders, including their respective roles, convictions, age, antecedents and degree of direction by another. A downward adjustment for totality may be necessary, but it must not erase a distinction already reflected in the notional sentences for the individual offences. Failure to preserve that distinction can make the resulting sentence wrong in principle and require appellate adjustment.

The appellant was convicted at Snaresbrook Crown Court of conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm arising from a planned shooting at Broadwater Farm Estate. He was acquitted of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life.

On 1 March 2024, the Crown Court imposed an extended sentence of 24 years, comprising 19 years’ custody and a five-year extension period. The sentence was concurrent with an earlier extended sentence for a later retaliatory shooting at Rigg Approach.

The appellant appealed on the basis that the aggregation of the two episodes did not adequately distinguish his lesser role, acquittal on the firearm count, youth and substantially lighter criminal record from those of his co-defendant, who was the shooter. The central issue was whether the totality adjustment had produced a sentence that was just and proportionate to the appellant’s overall offending.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the 24-year extended sentence and substituted an extended sentence of 22½ years, comprising 17½ years’ custody and a five-year extension period.

2. The trial judge correctly approached the offending as a totality exercise. The appellant’s liability for the Broadwater Farm conspiracy and his earlier offending at Rigg Approach had to be considered together. A concurrent extended sentence could reflect the aggregate criminality, and a downward adjustment was appropriate because the new sentence began later than the earlier sentence.

3. However, the resulting sentence did not preserve the material distinction between the appellant and Kamal Parrish. The judge had correctly assessed the Broadwater Farm offending alone as warranting 11 years for the appellant and 15 years for Parrish. Parrish was the shooter and was convicted of the firearm count; the appellant was not. The appellant was younger, more lightly convicted, less involved and acted under Parrish’s direction.

4. Those distinctions were lost when the judge aggregated the appellant’s earlier and later offending. The different totality reductions led to an unjustified outcome in which the appellant’s extended sentence was only two years shorter than Parrish’s. That was an error in the determination or calculation of sentence and rendered the 24-year sentence wrong in principle.

5. A further reduction of 18 months was required to produce a sentence just and proportionate to the appellant’s overall offending. The replacement extended sentence was imposed under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) In R v Michael Lawrence [2025] EWCA Crim 181, the court allowed the sentence appeal, quashed the 24-year extended sentence and substituted an extended sentence of 22½ years.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook On 1 March 2024, following the appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm, the trial judge imposed an extended sentence of 24 years, comprising 19 years’ custody and a five-year extension period.