R v John Mark Cooper

In sentencing appeals, the totality principle must be assessed in the context of the offending. Where separate offending is committed against different victims and arises from different relationships, that circumstance is a material reason supporting consecutive sentences. A challenge that the resulting sentence is manifestly excessive may therefore fail to establish an arguable basis for leave to appeal.

The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal on the papers. He had received an eight-year determinate sentence for offences arising from one relationship and, following convictions for further serious sexual and domestic abuse offences arising from a second relationship, an extended sentence of 17 years, comprising 10 years’ custody and a seven-year extended licence period. The sentences were consecutive, producing a total custodial period of 18 years.

The applicant argued that the consecutive structure was manifestly excessive and failed to give sufficient effect to totality. The central issue was whether those grounds disclosed a proper basis for permission to appeal.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

1. The applicant’s challenge focused on the consecutive sentences and the alleged failure to apply the principle of totality.
2. The court adopted the reasons given by the single judge and relied, in particular, on the fact that the offending was committed against two different women and arose during two different relationships. Those circumstances provided a material basis for treating the two sets of offending separately for sentencing purposes.
3. The court was not persuaded that the aggregate custodial sentence was manifestly excessive or that the totality argument justified granting leave. The sentences therefore remained undisturbed.

The court also recorded that the reporting restriction under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applied. Publication identifying the complainant was prohibited during her lifetime unless the restriction was waived or lifted under section 3 of the Act.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 25 June 2026, refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Woolwich: Convicted the applicant in March and October 2024 and imposed consecutive sentences resulting in a total custodial period of 18 years.