Consecutive or Concurrent? Appropriate Sentencing for Multiple Counts: R v Brown [2020] EWCA Crim 1095
| Date | 01 October 2020 |
| Published date | 01 October 2020 |
| Author | Neil Parpworth |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018320971876 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
Consecutive or Concurrent?
Appropriate Sentencing for
Multiple Counts
R v Brown [2020] EWCA Crim 1095
Keywords
Assault, threatening to spit, coronavirus, police officers, public order offence
The appellant was a 40-year old male with 30 convictions for 94 offences. On the day in question, he had
an argument with his partner with whom he lived in a block of flats. After she left their flat, he shouted
abuse at her. A neighbour asked him to be quiet and to control his language. The appellant told his
neighbour to ‘Fuck off’ and to ‘come inside and make me’ in response to a request to control his
behaviour. The appellant also threatened to cause damage to the n eighbour’s car. The police were
informed of these events.
At about 9 pm the same day, three police officers arrived at the appellant’s address. They arrested him
for an offence of threatening to cause criminal damage. The appellant was initially taken to a hospital
after he reported that his leg was infected and that he was suffering from coronavir us. During the
journey, he became agitated in the back of a police van. In response to one of the officer’s attempts
to calm him down, he indicated that he would whack the officer and that he was ‘going to get my spit all
over you’. On arrival at the hospital he told the same officer that he hoped that all of his family would be
infected with coronavirus.
The appellant was discharged from the hospital without being treate d due to his aggressive and
threatening behaviour towards medical staff. As he was being taken back to the police van he collected
phlegm in his mouth and made to spit at two of the police officers. While they applied a spit hood he
made further threats to spit at them. Although the hood was removed at the police station, another had to
be applied after the appellant once again threatened to spit at officers.
At his trial in the Leicester Crown Court, the appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of assault on an
emergency worker, as well as to an offence of using threatening words or behaviour contrary to s 4 of the
Public Order Act 1986. In respect of the assault offences, he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment
on each count. In respect of one of the counts, the sentence was ordered to run consecutively rather than
concurrently. In the case of the s 4 offence, the judge imposed a two months’ prison sentence which was
ordered to run concurrently. The total sentence imposed was therefore 12 months’ imprisonment.
The appellant appealed against his sentence on two grounds: (i) that the sentence of eight months’
imprisonment for the assault offence (it had been reduced to six months to reflect the guilty plea) was
excessive given the appellant’s ‘chaotic lifestyle’ and the fact that no spitting had actually occurred; and
(ii) that there had been no proper basis on which to order that the sentence for one of the assault counts
was to run consecutively rather than concurrently with the sentences for the other assault counts.
Held, allowing the appeal, that while the court had no hesitation in rejecting the first ground, the
second ground had merit. The trial judge had failed to explain why he had imposed a consecutive rather
than a concurrent sentence for one of the assault counts. On the face of it, the assault offences had arisen
The Journal of Criminal Law
2020, Vol. 84(5) 516–519
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018320971876
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial