When Might Two Offences be Founded on the Same Course of Conduct?: R v Hamer [2023] EWCA Crim 516.

Of course, in I Hamer i , unlike in either I McEvilly i or I Ismail i , the appellant had not been charged with alternative offences but with what was regarded by the prosecution as separate and distinct offences. Moreover, the imposition of concurrent rather than consecutive sentences for the s.139(1) and s.29 offences meant that the totality of the appellant's sentence, 15 months' imprisonment, was no greater than it would have been had he been convicted of the s.139(1) offence alone. But if the defendant is convicted by the jury on the more serious offence, he will be sentenced on that matter and the court should order that the alternative offence to which he had previously pleaded guilty should lie on the file' (at [21]). [Extracted from the article]