The Imperative of Totality and Consideration of Prior Sentences in Subsequent Criminal Sentencing

Introduction

R v GMB (2025] EWCA Crim 414) is an appeal against sentence heard by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on 18 February 2025. The appellant, a 76-year-old former scout leader and church-camp organiser, challenged a consecutive sentence of six and a half years’ imprisonment imposed for nine counts of indecent assault on four women and girls spanning from 1971 to 1996. He argued that the trial judge failed to have proper regard to a prior sentence of 34 months’ imprisonment imposed in May 2023 for similar offending against his granddaughter, and thereby breached the principle of totality.

Key issues:

Does the sentencing judge need to conduct a specific analysis of the impact of a previous sentence on a new sentence?
How should the principle of totality and relevant precedents inform the sentencing exercise when successive sentences are imposed for related offending?
Was the six-and-a-half-year consecutive sentence manifestly excessive?

Parties:

Appellant: Mr GMB, convicted on nine counts of indecent assault (Sexual Offences Act 1956, s. 14(1)).
Respondent: Crown (represented by Mr Egan KC).
Judges: Cheema-Grubb J, with Parker and Dove LJJ concurring.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s challenge. It held that while the trial judge had applied the applicable guideline to the new offences, reduced for plea and totality among those counts, he failed to undertake a stand-alone analysis of the impact of the 34-month sentence already being served. The appellate court applied the framework articulated in R v Michael Green [2019] EWCA Crim 196 and R v McLean [2017] EWCA Crim 170:

Identify the similarities and overlap between the two sets of offending.
Consider the timing, seriousness, and nature of each sentence.
Assess whether credit for the old sentence would amount to an inappropriate bonus.
Exercise a discretionary reduction if appropriate, rather than mechanically deducting the prior term.

After conducting that exercise, the court concluded that the total term across both matters (nine years and four months) was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

1. R v Michael Green [2019] EWCA Crim 196
– Established that, although a standalone sentence for new offences may be unobjectionable, it can become manifestly excessive if successive to a recent prior sentence for similar offending. Green clarifies that the sentencing judge should exercise discretion in deciding what allowance, if any, to make for the prior sentence, guided by factors such as recency, similarity, overlap, and whether credit would confer an “undeserved bonus.”

2. R v McLean [2017] EWCA Crim 170
– Warns against giving offenders an inappropriate credit for a technical sentencing rule or previous regime. It emphasises that totality must be considered in context of both dangerousness and fairness to victims.

3. Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
– Requires anonymisation of victims of sexual offences during their lifetime; hence the case is reported with only initials.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolds in three stages:

Identification of gap: Although the trial judge reduced the individual counts for plea and totality within the nine new offences, he did not specifically address how the 34-month term already being served should affect the new sentence.
Application of the Green framework: The appellate court systematically considered:
- Recency: prior sentence was imposed only 18 months earlier.
- Similarity: both sets were indecent assaults on minors within family or scout camp settings, though the prior offending against the granddaughter was more serious.
- Overlap in time: none.
- Opportunity to admit earlier offending: appellant could have disclosed the four victims before the 2023 sentence, but chose denial, gaining positive mitigation (character references, contrition) that he did not deserve.
- Age and health: appellant is 76 and has a recent cancer diagnosis.
Discretionary outcome: Having weighed these factors, the court recognized that no further reduction was warranted. The combined 9 years 4 months’ term reflected the totality principle applied across 29 years of offending against five victims.

Impact

1. Sentencing consistency: Reinforces that judges must explicitly address the effect of prior sentences in subsequent sentencing exercises to avoid appeals.

2. Totality principle clarified: Confirms that totality is a two-stage exercise—first within the new counts, then in relation to existing sentences.

3. Victim interests: Underscores that denial and delay in admitting offences can negate favourable mitigation, ensuring victims are not forced to relive trauma.

4. Sentencing discretion re-affirmed: Appellate courts will not lightly interfere if the judge’s exercise of discretion is fully informed and rational.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Totality Principle: A sentencing rule ensuring the overall punishment is just and proportionate when multiple offences or sentences arise. It requires that consecutive terms do not combine to produce a grossly excessive total.
Credit for Guilty Plea: Offenders receive a reduction in sentence (up to 25%) when they plead guilty at the first opportunity, reflecting saved court time and early acceptance of responsibility.
“Undeserved Bonus”: A term from McLean, describing a scenario where an offender gains unfair advantage by technical quirks in sentencing rules rather than genuine mitigation.
Recursive Sentencing Exercise: Judges must first decide the appropriate term for the new offences alone, then decide if and how the existing sentence should temper that term.

Conclusion

R v GMB [2025] EWCA Crim 414 delivers a clear legal precedent: when sentencing for new offences, courts must expressly consider the impact of any recent, related sentence already being served. By applying the framework from Green and McLean, judges safeguard the totality principle and maintain proportionality across successive sentencing events. This judgment thus fortifies sentencing consistency, upholds victims’ interests, and delineates the proper exercise of judicial discretion in the context of long-running sexual offending.