Smith, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, a 40-year-old career burglar with a history of substance abuse and 18 previous convictions for 67 offences spanning from 1999 to 2022, was sentenced on 3 May 2024 at the Crown Court at Luton by Her Honour Judge Dhaliwal-Thomas. The sentencing was for six burglaries (with two additional burglaries taken into consideration), robbery, theft, aggravated vehicle taking, handling stolen goods, dangerous driving, and two related summary offences under section 51(11) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The appellant had pleaded guilty on two prior occasions and received a 25% credit for this. The offences occurred during a crime spree between 6 November 2023 and 18 December 2023, while the appellant was on licence from a prior custodial sentence imposed in September 2020 for burglary offences. The appellant was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence as a third-strike burglar. The sentencing judge did not require a pre-sentence report but had a Response to Supervision report indicating the appellant’s engagement with drug misuse agencies and compliance with licence conditions until shortly before recall to custody. The appellant’s drug addiction was severe, leading to two hospital admissions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge misapplied the Totality guideline in imposing the appellant’s sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge erred by sentencing the burglary offences, taken as lead offences, at a very high level.
• The addition of consecutive sentences for robbery and dangerous driving/aggravated vehicle taking resulted in a manifestly excessive total sentence.
• The judge failed to stand back and assess whether the overall sentence was just and proportionate.
• Robbery did not clearly warrant a consecutive sentence under the sentencing guidelines.
• The appellant’s long incarceration and cyclical offending due to addiction were noted, but these did not affect the totality or proportionality of the sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the appellant’s extensive criminal history and the serious nature of the offences committed during the crime spree. The judge’s choice to treat one burglary involving a confrontation as the lead offence with other burglaries as aggravating factors was considered a valid sentencing structure. The robbery was particularly serious, involving violence with a weapon, and the aggravated vehicle taking and dangerous driving involved reckless endangerment and injury. The court accepted that consecutive sentences for robbery and vehicle-related offences were lawful provided the totality principle was respected. The overall sentence of 11 years (equivalent to a notional 14 years and 8 months after trial) was deemed just and proportionate given the appellant’s offending pattern, multiple victims, and lack of mitigation. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed. The court further analyzed the driving disqualification, finding errors in the original order relating to extended driving test requirements and the structuring of the disqualification period under statutory provisions. It directed amendments to the Crown Court record to reflect a 10 years and 6 months disqualification period, properly composed of discretionary and extension elements under relevant statutory sections.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence was DISMISSED.

The court upheld the overall sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment as just and proportionate despite the appellant’s argument on totality. The decision confirms that sentencing judges may impose consecutive sentences for distinct offences with different characteristics and victims, provided the totality principle is observed. The ruling also clarifies the correct approach to structuring driving disqualifications under sections 35A and 35B of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 in complex cases involving custodial sentences and prior disqualifications. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles and statutory guidance. The Crown Court record was directed to be amended to correct the driving disqualification order accordingly.