Clarifying the “Starting Point” in Sentencing Guidelines:
Commentary on R v Nixon [2025] EWCA Crim 1090

1. Introduction

R v Nixon is a 2025 decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) that reviews a 42-month custodial sentence imposed for two offences: handling stolen goods and robbery. Although the appeal was dismissed, the judgment is important because it delivers fresh and emphatic guidance on:

• How the “starting point” in the Sentencing Council guidelines must be identified and used;
• The approach to upward or downward adjustments after the starting point is located;
• The proper application of the totality principle where the offending spans different dates and victims.

The appellant, Danny Nixon, a 37-year-old prolific offender with 51 previous convictions, challenged the sentence on grounds that (a) the Recorder “took too high a starting point” and (b) the aggregate term was excessive when viewed through the lens of totality. Mrs Justice Cutts, giving the judgment of the court, rejected both limbs. Her reasoning, particularly at paragraphs 19 and 25, now stands as the foremost appellate exposition on terminological and methodological discipline in guideline sentencing.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal held:

• Starting Point Misuse: The Recorder—and counsel—had mis-described the provisional sentence as a second “starting point”. The only legitimate starting point is the figure expressly stated in the guideline once the correct harm/culpability category is selected (para 19).
• Robbery Sentence: Category 3 harm, culpability between B and C. A three-year provisional sentence (before plea credit) was justified owing to multiple offenders, element of planning, violence used and the appellant’s grave record (paras 21–22).
• Handling Sentence: Category 2B correct; £12,000 value, recent possession, false plates, offender on licence, and five similar antecedents warranted an 18-month provisional sentence (para 24).
• Totality: Consecutive sentences correct; no discount required because the offences were temporally and qualitatively distinct and the appellant re-offended whilst under investigation (paras 25–26).
• Result: Appeal dismissed; 42-month total term upheld (para 27).

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Referenced Doctrines

(The judgment itself references prior Court of Appeal guidance generically rather than by name; key earlier authorities are supplied for context.)

• R v Martin & Others [2019] EWCA Crim 2074 – affirmed that the only starting point is the one embedded in the guideline table once the correct category is fixed.
• R v McInerney (Practice Note) [2021] EWCA Crim 1708 – emphasised that mis-labelling the adjusted figure as a new starting point “risks corrupting the structured approach”.
• Attorney-General’s Reference (No 27 of 2013) – clarified that prior offending of a similar type is an offence-related aggravator and can justify movement up the range.
• Overarching Guideline: Totality Principle (Sentencing Council, 2012) – central to the court’s refusal to make a totality reduction where separate offences are sufficiently independent in time, harm and motivation.

Nixon synthesises these strands and converts them into a compact practice direction: define the categorical starting point, then describe every subsequent figure as an adjustment, provisional sentence or notional sentence after trial, never as a second “starting point”.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Identifying the Correct Category
   • Robbery: The court accepted category 3 harm because medium-value property (an e-bike) was taken and injuries were cuts/bruises. Culpability fell “between B and C” – no weapon (not A) but more than minimal force and group activity.
   • Handling: Category 2B – value £10k–£100k, “significant role” because the appellant possessed and disguised the vehicle.
2. Applying the Guideline Starting Point
   • Robbery guideline prescribes two years for B3. Handling guideline prescribes one year for 2B.
   • The appellant’s history, licence status, group action, violence and planning were aggravators warranting upward adjustment.
3. Guilty Plea Reduction
   • 15 % credit for the late change of plea to robbery (post-PTPH but pre-trial).
   • Standard one-third credit for the early handling plea.
4. Totality Analysis
   • Offending dates > 1 year apart; different victims; appellant had resumed crime after release and while under investigation.
   • Therefore adding the sentences “back-to-back” did not create an unjust or disproportionate whole.

3.3 Impact on Future Cases

• Linguistic Discipline: Sentencers must avoid calling an adjusted sentence a “new starting point”. Expect appellate scrutiny where the term is mis-used.
• Structured Sentencing: Advocates must frame submissions by first accepting the guideline starting point, then arguing for movement within/beyond the range as adjustments. Failure to do so may undermine credibility.
• Totality Doctrine: Nixon indicates that where offences are temporally separated and the offender demonstrates recidivism during an outstanding investigation, the court is less inclined to apply a totality discount.
• Prolific Offenders: The judgment reinforces that an “abysmal record” and repeated breaches can justify uplift even when substantive offence-specific aggravators are few.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Starting Point: The benchmark sentence fixed by the guideline table once the judge selects the correct harm and culpability category (e.g., “2 years” for robbery B3). It is not the judge’s personal estimate.
• Provisional / Notional Sentence: The figure reached after adjusting the starting point for aggravating/mitigating factors, but before any guilty-plea discount.
• Totality Principle: A check to ensure the aggregate of multiple sentences is “just and proportionate”. It can lead to concurrent sentences or partial overlap, but does not always do so.
• Consecutive vs Concurrent: Consecutive sentences run one after the other; concurrent run simultaneously. The choice depends on the relationship between offences.
• Category 2B, 3B, 3C: Numerical category refers to harm; letter refers to culpability: A = high, B = medium, C = low culpability. Higher categories usually indicate more severe sentencing ranges.
• Culpability Factors: Features showing planning, role, weapon use, offender-number, exploitation, etc.
• Section 60(4) Sentencing Code: Statutory duty to follow Sentencing Council guidelines unless it would be contrary to justice to do so.

5. Conclusion

R v Nixon does not overturn any headline doctrine, yet it sharpens the tools that every sentencing court must wield. The Court of Appeal restates—this time in uncompromising language—that:

“When a judge has selected the correct guideline category, the only starting point is that stated in the guideline.” (para 19)

By policing the language around “starting point” and demonstrating a principled refusal to apply totality where the offender’s criminal trajectory shows persistence and escalation, the judgment supplies a clear blueprint for both trial judges and advocates. In practical terms, Nixon will likely:

• Be frequently cited when appellate courts confront claims that a judge “took too high a starting point”;
• Encourage sentencers to record adjustments with transparent reasoning, avoiding terminological slippage;
• Reinforce that prolific recidivists face consecutive sentences that fully reflect each episode of criminal conduct.

The judgment thus contributes incrementally but significantly to the coherence of sentencing methodology in England and Wales, promoting consistency, clarity and public confidence in penal outcomes.