Factual and Procedural Background
On 5 July 2024, the Applicant pleaded guilty at Wigan Magistrates' Court to two offences of breach of a criminal behaviour order and possession of a bladed article, as well as one offence of theft. The Applicant was committed for sentence pursuant to the Sentencing Act 2020. On 2 August 2024, at the Crown Court at Bolton, the Applicant, aged 42, was sentenced by Judge Hudson. The sentences included concurrent terms of two months' imprisonment for theft and one breach of the criminal behaviour order, a concurrent sentence of 12 months for a second breach of the criminal behaviour order, and an 8-month consecutive sentence for possession of a bladed article, resulting in a total effective sentence of 20 months' imprisonment. A victim surcharge was imposed, and an order for forfeiture and destruction of the knife was made. The possession offence was subject to mandatory minimum custodial sentencing due to previous relevant convictions.
The Applicant had been subject to a criminal behaviour order from 27 June 2024, prohibiting entry into retail stores in Bolton town centre. CCTV evidence showed breaches of this order on 2 and 4 July 2024, including theft of items from a retail store and possession of a concealed kitchen knife and other items. The Applicant admitted possession of the knife and needles.
The Applicant had an extensive criminal record with 55 convictions for 116 offences, including numerous theft and weapon-related offences. The Crown Court sentenced without a pre-sentence report, which was confirmed as permissible under the Sentencing Act 2020. The sentencing judge classified the offences according to the Definitive Guideline categories, noting the Applicant's serious prior record and the circumstances of the offences, and concluded immediate custody was appropriate.
An application for an extension of time of 42 days to submit an appeal was referred to the Full Court after a delay caused by miscommunication between the Applicant and his solicitors. The solicitors had not acted on a letter from the Applicant that implied a wish to appeal, resulting in the appeal not being submitted promptly. The Court considered that despite unimpressive reasons for the delay, the Applicant should not suffer injustice given the circumstances.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the 12-month custodial sentence imposed for the breach of the criminal behaviour order on 4 July 2024 was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive.
- Whether the total sentence of 20 months' custody failed to properly reflect the principle of totality, resulting in a sentence that was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The 12-month sentence for the 4 July breach of the criminal behaviour order was excessive and unjustified, exceeding the appropriate category 2B sentencing range (12 weeks to 12 months) without adequate reasoning for a notional 18-month sentence before credit for guilty pleas.
- The total sentence of 20 months failed to properly apply the principle of totality, especially given that the possession of a bladed article and the breach of the criminal behaviour order occurred on the same date with a common motive related to theft. The consecutive imposition of sentences without substantial reduction was inappropriate.
- The notional starting point of 30 months' imprisonment before discounts was manifestly excessive.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court acknowledged the appropriateness of immediate custody and the upward adjustment of sentence from the starting point for the offences. It found no principle objection to the imposition of consecutive sentences for the relevant offences. However, the Court determined that the principle of totality required adjustment to reflect the overall gravity of the offending more accurately.
The Court held that the notional sentence for the 4 July breach of the criminal behaviour order should not have exceeded the top of the category 2B range (12 months). After accounting for the guilty plea, an 8-month sentence was appropriate for that offence. Adding this to the 8-month sentence for possession of a bladed article would yield a 16-month total. Applying the totality principle, the Court concluded that a total sentence of 15 months was appropriate.
The Court therefore quashed the 12-month sentence for the 4 July breach and substituted a 7-month sentence, leaving the other sentences unchanged.
Holding and Implications
The Court's final decision was to ALLOW THE APPEAL IN PART by reducing the total sentence from 20 months to 15 months' imprisonment. The revised sentence consists of 8 months for possession of a bladed article and 7 months for the breach of the criminal behaviour order on 4 July 2024.
The direct effect is the reduction of the Applicant's custodial sentence. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.