R v Sophie Stamper

When sentencing for separate and unconnected offences, the court must reflect their independent seriousness while applying the principle of totality. A reduction made for totality is not manifestly inadequate merely because the resulting sentence remains ineligible for suspension. The sentencing judge is not required to reduce an otherwise appropriate sentence solely to create the possibility of a rehabilitative or suspended sentence, particularly where immediate custody is justified by the circumstances of the offence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to being concerned in supplying class A drugs and to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Crown Court imposed consecutive sentences, reduced for guilty pleas and totality, producing an aggregate term of 26 months’ imprisonment. The appellant, who was of previous good character and had caring responsibilities, appealed against sentence as manifestly excessive.

The appeal focused on whether the judge should have reduced the sentence further so that suspension became legally available, and whether the four-month totality reduction was sufficient.

1. Appeal dismissed. The aggregate sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment was fully open to the sentencing judge, who had regard to all relevant criteria.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the drug offence and the assault as separate and unconnected offences requiring consecutive sentences. The sentence therefore had to reflect the independent seriousness of each offence. The four-month reduction made for totality was not manifestly inadequate in the circumstances.
3. The judge was not obliged to reduce the sentence further merely to make suspension legally available. The judge was entitled to conclude that the assault required immediate imprisonment and that no further adjustment was justified for the sole purpose of creating a suspension option.
4. Where the sentencing judge has properly considered the relevant criteria and the sentence is fully open on the facts, the Court of Appeal will not interfere merely because a different adjustment might have permitted suspension.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Manchester: The appellant was sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment for the two offences, comprising consecutive sentences after credit for guilty pleas and an adjustment for totality.