Consecutive Sentences in UK Law

The question for decision is whether the restriction on the range of sentences can properly be circumvented in situations like this, where the offender was found in possession of more than one gun, or, and no less important, a combination of guns and appropriate ammunition for use with them which came in to his possession on a single occasion and which were kept hidden and were found in the same hiding place, by an order for consecutive sentences.

The aggregate of the sentences must be appropriate to the offender's criminality in the context of the available mitigation. Second, consecutive terms should not normally be imposed for offences which arise out of the same incident or transaction. However there is sometimes a difficulty in deciding whether criminality under consideration may or may not be regarded as a single incident. The fact that offences are committed simultaneously is not necessarily conclusive.

In the context of a narrow range of available sentencing powers, and in particular the statutory maximum sentence, we are in reality being invited to circumvent the statutory maximum sentence on the basis that we believe it to be too low and to achieve our objective by disapplying well understood sentencing principles of which Parliament must be deemed to have been aware when the statutory maximum and minimum sentence was fixed.

It seems to us that the submission that the judge should not have passed consecutive sentences is correct. In R v Noble [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 65 consecutive sentences were passed for causing several deaths by dangerous driving in the same incident.

Whatever the merits of that advice in relation to fines it does not translate when considering sentences of imprisonment. When a defendant is sentenced to various consecutive terms of imprisonment, the warrant for his detention will specify the total term and that will be taken as the sentence imposed by the court. There is only one disposal in terms of the period of imprisonment.

We share the view expressed in that case that it is undesirable to impose consecutive indeterminate sentences or order an indeterminate sentence to be served consecutively to another period of imprisonment. Common sense suggests that a sentence of life imprisonment or of IPP starts immediately on its imposition.

Where the amount is not small, but is less than £17,500, terms of imprisonment from the very short up to a 21 months will be appropriate; cases involving sums between £17,500 and £100,000, will merit 2 to 3 years; cases involving sums between £100,000 and £250,000, will merit 3 to 4 years; cases involving between £250,000 and £1 million will merit between 5 and 9 years; cases involving £1 million or more, will merit 10 years or more.