Key Facts
- •Appellant (26) sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment for various offences (dangerous driving, drug possession, failure to surrender).
- •Offences committed across three indictments (Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Lincoln).
- •Appellant had a prior record including robbery, firearm possession, assault, and dangerous driving.
- •Offences committed while on licence for previous offences.
- •Appellant absconded after being charged and before sentencing.
- •Appeal concerns the length of the sentence and the lack of explanation in the sentencing remarks.
Legal Principles
Judges must explain how sentences, particularly lengthy ones, are calculated.
R v Bailey [2020] EWCA Crim 1719
Sentencing for multiple offences requires express regard to the Sentencing Council Guideline on Totality.
Sentencing Council Guideline on Totality
Totality requires a judge to consider whether the overall sentence is just and proportionate, not simply adding individual sentences.
Sentencing Council Guideline on Totality
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; sentence reduced.
The original sentence was manifestly excessive due to incorrect calculations and failure to consider totality. The court adjusted individual sentences and made one consecutive sentence concurrent.
Birmingham indictment sentence unchanged (21 months).
The individual sentences within this indictment were not deemed excessive.
Lincoln indictment sentence (3 months) made concurrent instead of consecutive.
Both failures to surrender stemmed from the same absconding period.
Wolverhampton indictment sentences reduced.
To reflect totality, the drug offences sentence was reduced from 3 years 6 months to 3 years and the dangerous driving sentence from 18 months to 12 months.
Overall sentence reduced from 7 years to 5 years and 9 months.
The original 7-year sentence was deemed manifestly excessive.