R v Michael David Youssefi

When sentencing for multiple offences, a court must apply the totality guideline as a complete process. It must determine the appropriate sentence for each offence, decide whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive, and then test the aggregate term to ensure that it is just and proportionate to the offending as a whole.

The internal structure of the sentence is subordinate to that final assessment. Consecutive terms cannot ordinarily be produced simply by adding notional single-offence sentences. A failure to carry out the final totality check is an error of principle and may require the appellate court to substitute a lower overall sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Lewes to two robberies, an attempted robbery, and two offences of possessing an article with a blade or point. The offending involved demands for Oxycodone at pharmacies, including threats involving a knife. It was materially connected with the appellant’s dependency on prescribed Oxycodone following severe injuries.

On 5 August 2024, the Recorder imposed three consecutive terms of four years for the robbery and attempted robbery offences, with concurrent terms for the bladed-article offences, making a total of 12 years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence with leave of the single judge.

The central issue was whether the judge had properly applied the totality guideline when imposing consecutive sentences.

1. Appeal allowed against sentence. The sentencing judge correctly assessed each robbery and the attempted robbery by reference to the relevant offence-specific guideline. He was also entitled to impose some consecutive sentences because of the separate offending, including offences committed while the appellant was on bail.

2. However, the judge did not complete the required totality exercise. The guideline required him first to determine the proper sentence for each offence, secondly to decide whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive, and thirdly to test the aggregate sentence for justice and proportionality. He completed the first two stages but did not perform the third.

3. For similar offences, consecutive sentences may be structured by proportionately reducing the component sentences, or by identifying a principal offence and reducing the remaining consecutive terms. The form or internal architecture of the sentence is subordinate to the overriding requirement that the whole sentence reflect total harm and culpability and be just and proportionate.

4. It was wrong in principle to impose the three consecutive four-year terms without stepping back to assess the total sentence. The court’s own totality assessment concluded that a lower aggregate term was required.

5. The court quashed the four-year sentences for the 9 May 2022 robbery and the 27 April 2024 attempted robbery, substituting consecutive terms of three years for each. The remaining sentences were undisturbed. The overall sentence was therefore reduced from 12 years to 10 years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Allowed the appeal against sentence in [2025] EWCA Crim 899, quashed two four-year terms, substituted two consecutive three-year terms, and reduced the overall term to 10 years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Lewes — On 5 August 2024, imposed consecutive terms of four years for each of two robberies and an attempted robbery, with concurrent terms for bladed-article offences; total sentence: 12 years’ imprisonment.