Bazegurore & Anor v R.

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals concern whether a court sentencing a defendant in the United Kingdom is obliged, under the Sentencing Council Guidelines or otherwise, to take into account sentences imposed by foreign courts for similar offences. The Appellants pleaded guilty on re-arraignment in March 2018 to conspiracy to facilitate the commission of a breach of UK immigration law involving non-EU persons. They were sentenced to nine years' imprisonment each in September 2018. The offences related to an incident in Bedford involving illegal immigrants in June 2016. The Appellants were not apprehended at that time but were arrested months later. In the interim, in August 2016, they were involved in a similar offence in Belgium, where they were arrested and subsequently convicted. The Belgian Court of Appeal increased their sentences on appeal to six years for one Appellant and five years for the other.

Following sentencing in the UK, the Appellants sought permission to appeal but were largely refused except on one point related to the totality principle and the relevance of the Belgian sentences. The Crown Court judge had not referred to the increased Belgian sentences but acknowledged the Appellants' involvement in international criminality. The central issue on appeal is whether the judge failed to properly apply the totality principle by not giving due weight to the foreign sentences that the Appellants would serve after their UK sentences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a UK court is obliged to take into account foreign sentences when sentencing a defendant for related offences under the Sentencing Council Guidelines or otherwise.
2. Whether the totality principle requires adjustment of domestic sentences to reflect sentences imposed abroad for related criminal conduct.
3. Whether the failure of the sentencing judge to consider increased foreign sentences constituted an error of law or fact requiring appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge sentenced on an incomplete or false basis, unaware of the full extent of foreign sentences imposed by the Belgian Court of Appeal.
• The judge was required, under the principle of totality, to take the Belgian sentences fully into account and would not have imposed nine-year sentences had she known the true extent.
• The two sets of offending should be viewed globally as a single conspiracy or closely connected conspiracies, warranting a lower aggregate sentence.
• Early release considerations should be disregarded when assessing the totality of sentences; the total headline sentence imposed abroad must be taken into account.
• They cited case law indicating that release dates are generally irrelevant to sentencing considerations (R (Robinson) v Secretary of State for Justice; R v Bright; R (Abedin) v Secretary of State for Justice).

Crown's Arguments

• The judge was unaware that the Belgian sentences had been increased on appeal.
• If sentenced for both conspiracies in the same court, the sentences would have been adjusted for totality and would not have been consecutive nine-year terms totaling 18 years.
• However, the judge was not required to sentence for two sets of offences from different jurisdictions; the Belgian offending was properly treated as an aggravating factor.
• A total combined sentence of approximately 15 years for one Appellant and 14 years for the other would have been appropriate if sentenced simultaneously in the UK.
• Offenders engaged in international criminality must accept the risk of penalties imposed by multiple jurisdictions; no reduction in UK sentences was warranted to account for foreign sentences.
• The totality principle does not generally require courts to consider foreign sentences, especially given practical difficulties and the need for finality in sentencing.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming the principle of totality as set out in the Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline, which requires a just and proportionate total sentence reflecting all offending behaviour before the court. However, the guideline applies primarily to multiple offences sentenced in the same jurisdiction, and does not explicitly require courts to account for foreign sentences imposed in separate jurisdictions.

The court acknowledged that exceptional circumstances might require an international overview, such as overlapping offences risking double jeopardy, but no such circumstances arose here. The court emphasized practical difficulties and risks of arbitrary results if courts were obliged to investigate and factor in foreign sentences routinely.

The court noted that the Appellants did not provide full information about the increased Belgian sentences to the sentencing judge, who therefore sentenced based on the facts before her. The court recognized that offenders engaged in international criminality must accept the risk of penalties in multiple jurisdictions.

Even if the judge had taken the Belgian sentences fully into account, the combined total of the UK and Belgian sentences, adjusted for differences in early release provisions, would not have led to a materially different sentence. The court calculated the Belgian sentences’ domestic equivalents by adjusting for early release eligibility, resulting in combined totals below what a UK court might impose for both offences simultaneously.

Consequently, the court concluded that the nine-year sentences imposed in the UK were not excessive, unjust, or disproportionate when viewed in the context of totality and the foreign sentences.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED THE APPEALS.

The decision confirms that, as a general rule, UK courts are not required to adjust domestic sentences to take account of foreign sentences for related offences, particularly when those offences are prosecuted in separate jurisdictions. The ruling underscores the importance of sentencing based on the facts before the court to ensure legal certainty and finality. It also affirms that offenders engaged in international criminality must accept the risk of multiple sentences imposed by different jurisdictions. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles of totality, justice, and proportionality in the international sentencing context.