R v Marcus Taylor
[2024] EWCA Crim 615
R v BAB
10 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 712
Court of Appeal
A solicitor raped his junior colleague after trying to trick her into a marriage. The judge gave him a light sentence. The appeals court increased the sentence to 8 years because the judge didn't properly consider how vulnerable the victim was and how serious the crime was.
Key Facts
- •The offender, a 59-year-old senior solicitor, raped a 41-year-old junior colleague.
- •The rape occurred in the office after the offender, with the help of an Imam over the phone, attempted to coerce the victim into an Islamic marriage.
- •The victim had a history of domestic abuse and felt isolated and vulnerable.
- •The offender had no prior convictions.
- •The trial judge sentenced the offender to 54 months' imprisonment (4.5 years).
- •The Attorney General referred the sentence as unduly lenient.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for rape, considering harm and culpability categories.
Sentencing Council guideline for rape
Vulnerability is relevant to both harm and culpability in rape sentencing.
EWCA Crim 712
Abuse of a position of power, even if not strictly 'abuse of trust', is a significant aggravating factor.
EWCA Crim 712
The weight of good character diminishes with the seriousness of the offence.
Sentencing Council guideline for rape
Sentencing judges should consider all factors in the round and not be overly rigid in applying guidelines.
EWCA Crim 712
Reference to R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232 regarding stretched prison resources and appropriate sentence length.
R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and quashed the original sentence.
The trial judge incorrectly categorized the harm and culpability, failed to adequately consider the victim's vulnerability and the aggravating factors (including the offender's manipulative behavior and the significant impact on the victim), and misweighed the mitigating factors.
A sentence of eight years' imprisonment was substituted.
The Court of Appeal found that a sentence of at least eight years was appropriate considering all the circumstances of the offence.