R v GMB

When sentencing for offences revealed after an earlier sentence for similar offending, the court must consider the earlier sentence in the overall circumstances. Relevant matters include similarity, recency, temporal overlap, whether the offender could have disclosed the later offences earlier, inappropriate credit, age and health, custody conduct, and whether the aggregate sentences offend totality. The exercise is not a mechanical deduction of the earlier sentence from a hypothetical sentence for all offending. The judge first fixes the proper sentence for the later offences, allowing for totality within them, and then decides whether any further reduction is justified. Where the required analysis has been undertaken, appellate interference requires an irrational exercise of discretion.

This was an appeal against sentence from the Crown Court at Worcester. The appellant had pleaded guilty to nine historic indecent assaults against four victims and received six and a half years’ imprisonment, consecutive to a 34-month sentence imposed in 2023 for similar offending against his granddaughter.

The appeal alleged that the later sentencing judge had failed to take sufficient account of the earlier sentence and the totality principle. The central issue was whether the combined sentence of nine years and four months was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against sentence.

1. The court applied the approach in R v Michael Green [2019] EWCA Crim 196. A judge sentencing for later offences after an earlier sentence for similar offending must consider all the circumstances in deciding what, if any, impact the earlier sentence should have. Relevant matters include the similarity and recency of the offending, temporal overlap, whether the offender could have cleared the slate by disclosing the offences, any inappropriate credit, age and health, conduct in custody, and whether the combined sentences would offend totality.
2. The exercise is not a simple calculation of the sentence that might have been imposed for all offending less the sentence already served or imposed. The judge must first determine the proper sentence for the later offences, including totality among those offences, and then exercise a discretion whether any further allowance is justified.
3. Where the sentencing judge has considered the relevant matters and exercised that discretion, the Court of Appeal will interfere only if the discretion was exercised irrationally. Here, however, the judge had not specifically undertaken the required analysis of the sentence already being served, so the appellate court conducted that assessment itself.
4. The earlier sentence had been imposed 18 months earlier and involved similar offending against a pre-teen child accessed through family connections, although the offending was more serious and there was no temporal overlap. The appellant could and should have admitted the later offences before the 2023 sentence. He had also benefited from positive references, apparent contrition and an apparently long period without offending, which was later shown to be false. His age and cancer diagnosis were taken into account, but did not justify a further reduction.
5. The total sentence of nine years and four months, after guilty plea reductions, for offending against five victims over 29 years was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 414, dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Worcester: On 5 December 2024, imposed six and a half years’ imprisonment, consecutive to an earlier sentence of 34 months’ imprisonment.