R v Vincent Foley

On an appeal against sentence, a sentencing judge’s failure to spell out mitigation or totality does not necessarily make the sentence manifestly excessive. The appellate court may infer from the sentence’s structure and level that relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, guilty-plea credit and totality were taken into account. Under Step 2 of an offence-specific guideline, the court considers the starting point and category range, then assesses additional factual and offender factors and may adjust upwards or downwards, including outside the range where appropriate. Consecutive sentences for separate offences can stand where the overall sentence, viewed in the round, is proportionate.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Chester Crown Court to attempted robbery, possession of an offensive weapon and burglary committed on the same day. On 11 September 2025 he received an aggregate sentence of seven years, comprising 5 years 4 months for attempted robbery, 12 months concurrent for possession of the weapon and 20 months consecutive for burglary. Leave to appeal was granted on grounds that the judge failed to address personal mitigation, including bereavement and mental-health difficulties, and failed to apply totality. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive despite the absence of express reasoning on those matters.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal accepted that the sentencing remarks did not expressly address mitigation or totality, but assessed the sentence as a whole.

1. Attempted robbery. The use of a weapon to inflict violence was a high-culpability factor. The physical and psychological harm was significant, but did not justify Category 1. The offence was properly treated as Category 2A, with a 5-year starting point and a 4-to-8-year range. Under Step 2 of the guideline, the judge was required to consider additional aggravating and mitigating factors and make any appropriate further adjustment.
2. Mitigation. The court recognised important mitigation, including the effect of the appellant’s grandchild’s death and the subsequent loss of control in his behaviour. Although the judge had not expressly identified these matters, the Court inferred from the sentence that he had allowed for aggravation, then reduced the term for mitigation and applied the full one-third guilty-plea credit. The resulting sentence was not manifestly excessive.
3. Burglary and totality. The burglary was properly placed in Category 2B, with an 18-month starting point and a range of 6 months to 3 years. The judge used 30 months before credit for the plea rather than the 36-month top of the range. That indicated that he had had regard to totality. The consecutive structure for separate offences was permissible, and the seven-year overall sentence was not manifestly excessive when viewed in the round.
4. Order. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 24 June 2026, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2026] EWCA Crim 881 .
• Crown Court at Chester — Following guilty pleas entered on 13 August 2025, the appellant was sentenced on 11 September 2025 to an aggregate term of seven years.