R v Marcus Taylor
[2024] EWCA Crim 615
R v Joseph Head
23 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 836
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of rape and assault. The prosecutor argued the sentence was too light. The Appeal Court disagreed, saying the judge who heard the case made a fair decision, considering both the bad things the man did and the reasons why he might deserve a less harsh punishment. They decided not to change the sentence.
Key Facts
- •The respondent, aged 19 at the time of the offences and 25 at sentencing, was convicted of three counts of rape and one count of assault by penetration.
- •The offences involved manipulation and coercion of the victim, who was a fellow student.
- •The respondent pretended to have suicidal tendencies and multiple personalities to force the victim into sexual acts.
- •The offences spanned several months, with the final incident resulting in physical injuries to the victim.
- •There was a significant delay (approximately six years) between the offences and the sentencing.
- •The respondent was of previous good character and had some diagnosed mental health issues.
Legal Principles
Sentencing is an art, not a scientific or arithmetical exercise.
Attorney-General's Reference (Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846
Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is designed to deal with cases where judges have fallen into 'gross error'.
Attorney-General's Reference (Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846
A sentence is only unduly lenient where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge at first instance might reasonably consider appropriate.
Attorney-General's Reference (Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846
The judge at first instance is particularly well placed to assess the weight to be given to competing factors in considering sentence.
Attorney-General's Reference (Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846
Reaching the age of 18 is not a 'cliff edge' for the purposes of sentencing.
Attorney-General's Reference (Clarke) [2018] EWCA Crim 185
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: protects victim anonymity.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Outcomes
The Attorney General's application for leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient was refused.
The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had carefully considered all the circumstances, including the aggravating and mitigating factors, and that the sentence imposed fell within the reasonably available range. The judge's categorisation of the offences was not deemed to be a gross error.