Cunningham, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 1 and 2 December 2024, the Appellant, aged 18, committed twelve offences including assaults on emergency workers, racially aggravated threatening behaviour, and criminal damage. The offences arose from an incident beginning at the Appellant's mother's residence, continuing at a hospital, a police station, and during a police interview. The Appellant was aggressive, threatening, and caused significant property damage, including throwing large items from a window and racially abusive conduct towards officers and hospital staff. He was arrested after armed officers stormed the property. The Appellant had a history of previous convictions and was on licence at the time of the offences.

He pleaded guilty before magistrates and was sentenced on 25 February 2025 by His Honour Judge Fuller KC in the Crown Court at Bournemouth to 24 months' detention in a young offender institution. The Appellant appealed against the sentence with leave granted by a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight or detailed attention to the Appellant's age and the sentencing guidelines applicable to children and young people.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to properly apply the principle of totality, specifically by treating the offences as four separate periods and imposing consecutive sentences, rather than treating them as a single series of connected offences and imposing concurrent sentences accordingly.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge did not adequately consider the Appellant's recent transition to adulthood and the relevant sentencing guidelines for young offenders, instead treating him as a fully adult offender with immaturity as a minor factor.
• The judge erred in the application of totality by segmenting the offences into separate periods and imposing consecutive sentences, which artificially inflated the total sentence beyond what was just and proportionate.
• It was submitted that the notional sentence after trial for one of the charges was excessive compared to the guideline range for the basic offence, suggesting an error in sentencing principle.

Court's Response to Arguments

• The court found no error in the judge’s approach to the Appellant's age and immaturity, noting the judge made an individualised assessment supported by the pre-sentence report and relevant case law.
• The court rejected the submission that the sentences for individual offences were manifestly excessive, explaining the proper application of the sentencing guidelines for aggravated offences.
• The court upheld the judge’s approach to concurrency and consecutiveness of sentences, emphasizing the distinct nature of the offences, multiple victims, locations, and aggravating factors justified some consecutive sentences.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Clarke [2018] EWCA Crim 185, [2018] 2 Cr. App. R (S) 52	Research on the pace of development in young people under 25 and sentencing guidelines for young offenders.	The court relied on Clarke and associated research to confirm the sentencing judge’s proper consideration of the Appellant’s maturity and the relevant guidelines.
R v Greaves [2023] EWCA Crim 1764	Approach to sentencing a series of offences involving multiple victims and distinct clusters of offending.	The court cited Greaves to support the appropriateness of consecutive sentences for distinct clusters of offending in the present case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed analysis of the sentencing judge’s approach, focusing on two main points: the treatment of the Appellant’s age and immaturity, and the application of the totality principle in sentencing multiple offences.

Regarding age and immaturity, the court found the sentencing judge properly considered the Appellant’s youth and developmental factors, drawing on the pre-sentence report and established case law. The judge made an individualised assessment of maturity impacting culpability and sentencing outcome, which was not flawed by treating the Appellant as a fully adult offender.

On totality, the court explained the three-stage approach under the revised guideline: assessing individual sentences, deciding concurrency or consecutiveness, and testing the overall sentence for justice and proportionality. The court rejected the Appellant’s argument that the offences should be treated as one single incident warranting concurrent sentences. The offences were distinct in nature, involved multiple victims and locations, and included aggravating elements such as racial abuse. The sentencing judge’s decision to impose some consecutive sentences was supported by guideline principles and precedent.

The court also addressed the Appellant’s contention about the notional sentence for one charge being excessive by clarifying the sentencing guideline structure for aggravated offences, which allows for uplifted sentences exceeding the basic offence range. The judge’s sentences were found to be within the proper discretionary range and not manifestly excessive.

However, the court concluded that the aggregate notional sentence of 36 months’ detention before plea credit was excessive. It determined that 27 months would be the least just and proportionate sentence before reduction. After full credit for the guilty plea, the appropriate total sentence was 18 months.

To implement this, the court quashed and substituted sentences on two charges to run concurrently rather than consecutively, and adjusted the concurrency and consecutiveness of other sentences accordingly. A mandatory surcharge was also imposed to correct a technical oversight.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was ALLOWED IN PART.

The court reduced the overall sentence from 24 months' detention to an effective 18 months' detention by adjusting concurrency between certain charges, specifically quashing sentences on two charges and substituting concurrent periods of detention. The court also corrected the imposition of a mandatory surcharge. No new precedent was established, and the decision primarily affects the specific sentencing outcome for the Appellant.