Google gave this as answer
———-
Why would a judge choose concurrent sentences?
Common reasons include:
The offences are connected: Several offences happened during the same incident.
Fairness: The judge considers that adding every sentence together would be excessive.
Overlapping criminal behaviour: Several convictions arise from essentially the same course of conduct.
Proportionality: The overall punishment should reflect the seriousness of the offending.
Does concurrent mean someone gets away with the other offences?
No. The person is still convicted of every offence and receives a sentence for each one.
However, the longest sentence effectively determines the overall prison term.
In England and Wales, judges must consider sentencing rules and the totality principle when deciding whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively.
———
So had the sentences been consecutive rather concurrent, he’d have been looking at 12 years (likely to have served 2/3s = 8 years). In this case I think it would fall under the ‘Overlapping Criminal Behaviour’ suggestion. I’m no legal expert, but hypothetically if Offender X were to have stolen a car to drive to someone’s house and shoot that person dead with a gun, that would be three counts- Grand Theft Auto, Possession of a Deadly Weapon and Murder. The count of murder would receive the longest sentence, but it doesn’t happen without the two things occurring. You’re not getting away with the other two counts, they would be separate convictions, but they play into a bigger picture