R v Blackmore [2025] EWCA Crim 1365: Totality on Sequential Sentences for Overlapping Historic Sexual Offences Is a Discretionary, Not Automatic, Recalculation

Introduction

This appeal from the Crown Court at Wood Green raises a recurring and difficult question in sentencing historic sexual offences: how should a sentencing court apply the principle of totality when an offender has already served a substantial custodial sentence for similar, overlapping criminal conduct, and the later case involves different victims and more serious offending over a longer period?

The Appellant, a former head of a school PE department, was convicted in 2024 of three counts of indecent assault contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The counts concerned repeated indecent assaults on a male pupil, beginning when the complainant was aged 11 and continuing opportunistically through his secondary school years. The jury could not reach verdicts on three counts of buggery under section 12(1) of the 1956 Act; the prosecution did not seek a retrial for those counts.

In 2017, the Appellant had been sentenced to five years’ imprisonment at the Central Criminal Court for indecent assaults on two other pupils at the same school (offending between 1982 and 1985). Leave to appeal that sentence was refused: [2017] EWCA Crim 2626. The instant offences overlapped in time with that earlier conduct by approximately three years, but related to a different victim and, in the view of the courts below and on appeal, were materially more serious due to their frequency, persistence, and context of breach of trust.

On 25 October 2024 the sentencing judge imposed concurrent sentences of five and a half years’ imprisonment on each count, including a 12-month reduction to reflect totality in light of the earlier sentence. On appeal, the Appellant argued that, given the 2017 sentence, a fresh term of 5½ years rendered the overall aggregate of 10½ years “manifestly excessive” when judged against the totality of the offending. He also relied on advanced age and significant health issues. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, but quashed an erroneously imposed surcharge. The judgment also reminded parties that reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court reaffirmed that when sentencing historic sexual offences after a prior sentence for similar, overlapping conduct, any adjustment for totality is a matter of judgment, not an automatic recalculation of what would have been imposed had all offences been sentenced together.
Although a court must ensure the overall totality of sentences remains just and proportionate, it should avoid conferring an “undeserved bonus” on a defendant merely because not all offending was sentenced at the same time—particularly where the defendant could have admitted the additional conduct earlier.
On the facts, the 12-month reduction granted for totality was sufficient. The new offending involved a single victim repeatedly abused over many years, amounting to more serious criminality than the 2017 convictions. An overall aggregate of 10½ years for eight indecent assaults involving three child victims in serious breach of trust was not manifestly excessive.
Mitigation—age, deteriorating health including possible early Alzheimer’s, and exemplary conduct in prison—was fully considered by the sentencing judge; it did not render immediate custody unduly harsh given the gravity and persistence of the sexual abuse.
The surcharge provisions did not apply to these historic offences; the surcharge order was therefore quashed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court’s reasoning is anchored in, and develops, two key authorities:

R v Green [2019] 4 WLR 37: Green is a leading authority on the application of the totality principle where separate sentences are imposed for offences that could have been (but were not) sentenced together. It emphasizes that while the court must have regard to totality, the outcome is an evaluative decision informed by proportionality and the avoidance of artificial “grouping” that creates injustice in either direction. Green recognizes that separate sentences may be necessary and appropriate, and that the adjustment for totality is not a mechanical exercise.
R v McLean [2017] EWCA Crim 170: McLean highlights that a defendant should not receive an “undeserved bonus” because later-discovered offences are sentenced at a different time. Where the defendant could have admitted the additional conduct earlier, this counts against granting a large discount in the later proceedings. McLean thus tempers the application of totality by injecting a fairness check that prevents the undermining of sentencing objectives due to sequencing happenstance, or the defendant’s own choices.

Both cases were expressly cited to the sentencing judge and on appeal, with the Court of Appeal endorsing the approach taken below. The Blackmore court synthesizes these authorities into a clear restatement: totality remains essential, but any credit given when sentencing later cases is discretionary and must be justified by the facts, the culpability-harm profile, the relationship between the sets of offences, and the need to avoid a windfall to the offender.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three steps:

Starting Point: Measured Regard to Modern Guidelines and Statutory Maxima
The judge adopted a modern guideline approach appropriate for historic sexual offending: “measured regard” to the current guideline for an equivalent offence, while respecting the statutory maximum applicable at the time of the historic conduct. For the lead offence, the parties agreed the relevant modern comparator was sexual assault on a child under 13, assessed at Category 1A due to serious harm and a significant breach of trust. The statutory maximum for indecent assault under the 1956 Act remained 10 years’ imprisonment, which necessarily frames the available sentencing range.
Totality as an Exercise of Judgment, Not a Hypothetical Global Re-sentencing
The Court stress-tests the defence submission that a larger reduction was required to maintain overall proportionality when the 2017 and 2024 cases are viewed together. It rejects a mechanistic “what if sentenced together in 2017?” recalculation. Instead, it reiterates:
- Adjustment for totality is not automatic nor dictated by a retrospective thought experiment.
- Often, separate sentencing results from the offender’s own failure to admit additional offending earlier; that weighs against large reductions later.
- The court must, however, still ensure the total punishment across proceedings is proportionate and not excessive.
Applying those considerations, the Court concludes that a 12‑month reduction for totality was adequate in the circumstances.
Assessing Proportionality in the Round
The Court evaluates the overall criminality: eight indecent assaults involving three victims, committed in serious breach of trust by a teacher, with the present case featuring repeated indecent assaults across many school years, beginning when the complainant was 11. It expressly finds the present offending “much more serious” than the 2017 convictions. On that footing, a global picture of 10½ years does not cross the high appellate threshold of manifest excess. The mitigatory factors—advanced age and significant ill-health—were carefully assessed below and did not make immediate custody unduly harsh given the seriousness and persistence of the abuse.

The Court also corrects a discrete legal error: the victim surcharge regime did not apply to the historic offending periods in this case; the surcharge was therefore quashed. Finally, the Court underscores the reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, preserving the anonymity of the complainant.

What This Decision Adds

Blackmore consolidates and clarifies the law in two practical ways:

Sequential sentencing for overlapping historic sexual offending: Even where the offending periods overlap and are similar in kind, the reduction to reflect totality is discretionary and may be modest, particularly where the later case involves more serious criminality or where the offender could have admitted it earlier.
Measured use of modern guidelines: Courts should continue to use modern sentencing guidelines to structure the assessment of historic sexual offences, but must honour the historical statutory maxima and ensure that the guideline is applied with sensitivity to the context of the era and the facts of the case.

Impact

The decision provides concrete guidance for sentencing judges and appellate courts dealing with serial or overlapping historic sexual offences:

Discretionary totality: Sentencers should not feel compelled to reconstruct a hypothetical combined sentence from years past. Instead, they should conduct a principled, case-sensitive evaluation that balances proportionality with the need to avoid conferring an unintended “discount” simply because offences were prosecuted in stages.
Weight of later, more serious offending: Where the later case is more serious than the earlier sentence—because of persistence, frequency, or breach of trust—the scope for a substantial totality reduction decreases.
Defendant choice matters: If non-disclosure or late admissions by the defendant contributed to the separation of cases, that factor properly limits the size of any subsequent totality reduction.
Elderly and unwell offenders: Age and ill health remain relevant mitigation but will rarely eclipse the need for custody in grave historic sexual abuse, especially involving children and abuse of trust. Courts will require strong reasons to conclude such custody is “unduly harsh.”
Administrative vigilance: Practitioners should ensure surcharge orders are not imposed where the offending predates the applicable surcharge regime.

In practice, Blackmore will likely temper expectations that a prior sentence for similar, overlapping historic sexual offending will trigger a large reduction in a later case. It reinforces that the totality principle is a scalpel, not a sledgehammer: it fine-tunes the ultimate sentence to keep it proportionate, but does not entitle an offender to a windfall.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Totality principle: When a court sentences for multiple offences (or where a defendant has prior relevant sentences), it must look at the overall punishment and ensure it is just and proportionate to the entire criminality. This may result in some adjustment up or down. In sequential cases, the adjustment is discretionary, not automatic.
“Manifestly excessive”: The appellate yardstick for sentence appeals. The Court will intervene only if the sentence falls outside the permissible range of sentences a reasonable judge could impose, or if the judge erred in principle.
Concurrent sentences: Multiple sentences served at the same time. Here, the judge imposed 5½ years on each count concurrently, so the total for the instant case is 5½ years.
Multi‑incident count: A single count that alleges repeated conduct of the same type over a period, here “at least 10 occasions” of indecent assault, reflecting the regularity of abuse.
Measured regard to modern guidelines: In historic cases, courts apply current sentencing guidelines as a framework but must respect the statutory maximum applicable at the time of the offence. For indecent assault in the 1980s, the maximum was 10 years’ imprisonment.
Breach of trust: An aggravating feature where the offender misuses a position of authority or trust (such as a teacher’s authority over pupils) to facilitate offending.
Victim surcharge: A financial imposition designed to fund services for victims. It cannot lawfully be imposed where the offences predate the legislative provisions that introduced or extended the surcharge to those offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 anonymity: Provides lifelong anonymity for complainants in sexual offence cases unless waived or lifted under section 3. The Court rightly reminded parties that no identifying information may be published.

Conclusion

R v Blackmore is a significant appellate statement on the proper application of totality in sequential sentencing for overlapping historic sexual offences. It confirms three central propositions:

Totality in sequential cases is a matter of judgment, not an exercise in retrospective global re-sentencing.
Any reduction must preserve proportionality without gifting the offender an “undeserved bonus,” particularly where the offender could have revealed the additional criminality earlier.
Serious, persistent abuse of child victims in breach of trust justifies substantial sentences even for elderly and unwell offenders; mitigation must be carefully weighed, but will not routinely render custody unduly harsh.

On the facts, a 12‑month reduction to reflect the earlier 2017 sentence was sufficient; an overall aggregate of 10½ years for eight indecent assaults across three victims was not manifestly excessive. The judgment also serves as a practical reminder to avoid imposing surcharges on pre‑regime offences and to observe statutory anonymity protections.

In short, Blackmore refines the application of Green and McLean by articulating a principled, fact‑sensitive approach to totality that will guide courts in the many historic sexual abuse cases that continue to reach the criminal courts.