R v Anton Cobham

Where several offences arise from one short incident, sentencing must be assessed in the round to produce a just and proportionate total. There is no inflexible rule requiring concurrent or consecutive sentences. However, simply adding notional sentences will usually fail to reflect totality, and a downward adjustment will ordinarily be required. Where offences share the same aggravating features, the principal offence may be treated as the lead offence, with concurrent sentences and an uplift for the additional offending. An extended sentence is unavailable where the statutory conditions are not met, including where the just and proportionate term is below four years.

After a trial at Exeter Crown Court, the appellant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and two assaults on emergency workers arising from a single incident in prison. The sentencing judge imposed an extended sentence of five years on the lead count, together with consecutive and concurrent terms on the other counts.

The appellant appealed on the grounds that the individual sentences were too far above the guideline ranges and that the judge had failed to apply the totality principle. The central issue was whether the overall sentence was just and proportionate having regard to the common circumstances and aggravating features of the three offences.

1. Appeal allowed. The individual sentences were quashed and replaced with a determinate sentence of three years and six months on count 1 and six months on each of counts 2 and 3, all concurrent.
2. The court upheld the judge’s assessment of the seriousness of the offending. The appellant had engineered the officers’ entry into his cell, planned to assault whoever entered, used a metal panel as a weapon, and assaulted three prison officers acting in the course of their duty. The categorisation of the offences under the applicable sentencing guidelines was correct. His extensive record of violence, particularly in prison, was a significant aggravating feature, and there was little mitigation.
3. The judge nevertheless erred in failing to make a totality adjustment. The assaults occurred during one short incident and the same aggravating factors applied to each. The Totality Guideline contains no inflexible rule on whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive, but it is ordinarily impossible to reach a just and proportionate sentence by simply adding notional single-offence sentences. A downward adjustment is usually required.
4. This was a paradigm case for concurrent sentences, with count 1 as the lead offence and an uplift to reflect the aggravating factors and the additional assaults. The count 1 sentence was placed at the top of the category 2A range, producing a notional sentence of two years and six months. A further 12 months was appropriate, giving a total of three years and six months.
5. Because the appellant had no previous conviction for an offence within Schedule 14 of the Sentencing Act, and the just and proportionate term was below four years, an extended sentence was unavailable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the sentence appeal and substituted concurrent determinate sentences; [2026] EWCA Crim 840.
• Crown Court at Exeter: following conviction, imposed an extended sentence of five years on count 1, with further sentences on counts 2 and 3.