R v Creddy Thomas Marshall Taylor
[2024] EWCA Crim 416
R v Solomon Abdul
23 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 236
Court of Appeal
A man was given a long prison sentence for two violent burglaries. The court decided part of the sentence was wrong because the judge used information that shouldn’t have been considered. The court kept the rest of the long sentence, as the man was still considered dangerous.
Key Facts
- •Solomon Abdul, born 18 March 1996, pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated burglary in October 2019.
- •He was also convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and possessing a bladed article.
- •The burglaries involved targeting sex workers in hotel rooms, using a knife, and stealing money.
- •The judge imposed an extended sentence of 11 years and 2 months (3 years on count 1, consecutive 8 years 2 months on count 2).
- •The judge considered unproven allegations of similar offences when determining dangerousness.
- •The appellant's original solicitors were instructed within 18 months of the sentence and delays in obtaining the transcript and required reports also occurred.
Legal Principles
A court may consider any information about the offender when determining dangerousness (s.229(2)(c) Criminal Justice Act 2003, mirrored by s.308 Sentencing Act 2020).
R v Considine [2007] EWCA Crim 1166
When reaching a conclusion adverse to the defendant on dangerousness, the judge should not rely on a disputed fact unless it could be resolved fairly to the defendant.
R v Considine [2007] EWCA Crim 1166
An extended sentence under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (now largely mirrored by section 280 of the Sentencing Act 2020) is unlawful if the offender has not been convicted of a specified offence before the current conviction and the custodial term would be less than 4 years.
Section 226A Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcomes
The appeal is allowed in part.
The extended sentence on count 1 was unlawful. The finding of dangerousness was upheld, but the two unproven allegations should not have been considered.
The extended sentence on count 1 is set aside and replaced with a determinate sentence of 2 years.
The conditions for an extended sentence under section 226A were not met.
The consecutive extended sentence of 8 years and 2 months on count 2 is maintained.
The court upheld the finding of dangerousness based on the proven facts of the offences, despite the judge's error in considering unproven allegations.