Mark John Golightly [2019] EWCA Crim 1000

One of the issues on appeal was that concurrent sentences should have been passed as the offences formed part of the same incident, the other was that the applicant had been recalled on being charged with the offences which resulted in none of the period on remand counting towards his sentence.

The applicant pleaded guilty on the morning of trial to dangerous driving, possession of an offensive weapon, criminal damage and possession of an imitation firearm. He pursued his partner’s ex-boyfriend in his vehicle deliberately colliding with the complainant’s van, he then jumped out and smashed the van’s windscreen with an axe. A couple of weeks later he brandished what appeared to be a small black handgun at the same complainant. He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for the driving, 12 months consecutive for possession of the axe, 1 month concurrent for criminal damage and 2 years consecutive for possession of the imitation firearm.

Held: the sentencing judge was justified in passing consecutive sentences to reflect separate aspects of his criminal behaviour: the first dealing with the way he drove the car and the second involving his use of the axe. The overall sentence for the offending on the first date, 2 years and 6 months, may be severe but was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle even in conjunction with the sentence for the imitation firearm. There was no authority for a sentencing judge to reduce sentence to account for the fact that time on remand will not count toward sentence. The submission was judged to be unarguable and to compensate for time would bypass the statutory intention of Parliament, there are no exceptional circumstances in this case where the plea was delayed until the morning of trial. The renewed application for leave was refused.