Anonymised Summary of Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns an Appellant who was sentenced in the Crown Court following multiple pharmacy robberies and related offences. The Appellant (aged 42 at the relevant times) pleaded guilty on 24 April 2024 to a robbery and an offence of having an article with a blade or point. On 28 May 2024 he pleaded to offences of attempted robbery, robbery and having an article with a blade or point. On 5 August 2024 the sentencing Judge imposed consecutive four-year sentences for each of the two robberies and the attempted robbery, and concurrent one-year terms for the two offences of possession of a bladed article, producing an aggregate sentence of 12 years' imprisonment. The Appellant appealed against sentence with leave.

The factual background, as found by the court, was as follows:

• 9 May 2022: The Appellant entered Company A (a pharmacy) wearing a face covering and displaying a large knife, went behind the counter and demanded Oxycodone. He left after obtaining one box. Blood staining was found on the pharmacy floor and later matched the Appellant's DNA. The Appellant had earlier denied involvement and gave a false alibi.
• 27 April (three days after 24 April plea): The Appellant attended Company B (a pharmacy) shortly before 9 am, demanded Oxycodone while producing a knife and threatened violence. A 15‑year‑old boy intervened to calm him; the Appellant left and reentered, pushing a staff member who suffered a bruise and feared for her life. Later that day the Appellant entered Company C (another pharmacy), again demanded Oxycodone, threatened with a knife (no knife seen) and obtained Oxycodone before leaving.
• Automatic number-plate recognition linked the Appellant's vehicle to the relevant areas at the relevant times. On arrest a quantity of Oxycodone was recovered from the vehicle and more was found at the Appellant's address. The Appellant exercised his right to silence at interview on arrest in 2024.

The Pre-Sentence Reports recorded that the Appellant had suffered a prior injury resulting in an amputation and had been prescribed Oxycodone, to which he had developed a dependency; he reported running out of medication on the days of the offending. Victim personal statements described fear, distress and difficulty returning to work among staff affected by the incidents. The sentencing Judge acknowledged the Appellant's injuries and dependency but imposed consecutive custodial terms for the robbery and attempted robbery offences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing Judge failed to apply the totality principle correctly when passing consecutive sentences for multiple similar offences.
2. Whether the overall sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive because the sentencing Judge did not test whether the total sentence was just and proportionate to the offending as a whole.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Attorney [Last Name] submitted in written and oral submissions that the sentencing Judge failed to fully apply the sentencing guidelines on totality by not adequately reflecting whether the overall sentence was just and proportionate, resulting in a sentence wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any arguments advanced by the prosecution or other parties.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused on the application of the Totality guidelines when sentencing for multiple offences. It set out the three-step approach contained in those guidelines for determinate sentences:

1. Consider the sentence for each individual offence with reference to relevant sentencing guidelines.
2. Determine whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive (and whether a combination is appropriate).
3. Test the overall sentence to ensure it is just and proportionate to the offending as a whole.

The appellate court found that the sentencing Judge had correctly undertaken the first two components: identifying the appropriate guideline starting points for the robbery and attempted robbery (each assessed as high culpability and Category 2 harm, with a starting point and category range noted) and deciding that some consecutive sentences were required. The sentencing Judge explained how he arrived at the individual sentences, sought to avoid double counting (by using the presence or production of a knife to elevate culpability) and acknowledged the Appellant's mitigation, including his injuries and medication dependency.

However, the appellate court concluded that the sentencing Judge fell into error by failing to carry out the third and final component of the Totality guidelines: he did not step back and test whether the overall aggregate sentence was just and proportionate to the offending as a whole. The court emphasised that it is usually impossible to achieve a just and proportionate total sentence merely by adding notional single sentences, and that the internal architecture of the sentence (how it is constructed from consecutive and concurrent terms) must serve the overall requirement of proportionality. Because the sentencing Judge did not engage with this final step, the appellate court held that the judge was wrong in principle.

The appellate court therefore conducted its own assessment of totality and concluded that a lower overall sentence would have been just and proportionate in all the circumstances.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART

Holding (direct effect on the sentences):

• The court quashed the original sentence imposed for the robbery on 9 May 2022 and substituted a consecutive sentence of 3 years' imprisonment.
• The court quashed the original sentence imposed for the attempted robbery on 27 April 2024 and substituted a consecutive sentence of 3 years' imprisonment.
• The sentences imposed for the remaining offences (including possession of a bladed article) were left undisturbed; the possession terms remain concurrent to each other and concurrent to the robbery/attempted robbery terms.
• As restructured, the sentences for the robbery and attempted robbery run consecutively to each other but concurrently with the possession terms, producing an overall sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for the offending as a whole.

Implications:

• The court emphasised the necessity for sentencing judges to apply the Totality guidelines in full and, critically, to perform the final step of testing whether the aggregate sentence is just and proportionate. Failure to do so may render a sentence wrong in principle.
• In this case the direct consequence was a reduction of the overall custodial term from 12 to 10 years. The opinion does not purport to establish new law beyond applying the guidelines; it resolves the appeal by varying the sentence to reflect proper engagement with the totality principle.