Taylor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 20 November 2020, at the Crown Court at The City, the Appellant pleaded guilty to breaching a non-molestation order. Subsequently, on 3 June 2021, before the same judge, the Appellant was acquitted of attempted murder but sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment for the breach. On 10 July 2023, following a written application by the prosecution, the restraining order was varied to expand the exclusion zone. The Appellant was represented by counsel at this hearing.

The Appellant sought extensions of time to appeal both the conviction and the sentence after these were refused by a single judge on 9 July 2023. The extensions sought were for 741 days for the conviction appeal and approximately 15 weeks plus 546 days for the sentence appeal. The Appellant alleged that solicitors and the Probation Service misled him into believing he had to serve his sentence and probation before appealing, but these allegations were unsubstantiated.

The background facts reveal that the Appellant and the complainant had been married for 12 years and had children together before their relationship deteriorated around 2018, resulting in separation. A non-molestation order was made on 28 August 2020 in the Family Court, prohibiting the Appellant from using or threatening violence towards the complainant. This order was served on the Appellant on 29 August 2020.

On 29 September 2020, the Appellant breached the order by entering the complainant’s property, smashing a glass door, and attacking her physically, including choking and punching. The police arrested him at the scene. The Appellant pleaded guilty to breaching the non-molestation order but was found not guilty of attempted murder after trial.

During sentencing, the judge described the Appellant’s conduct as appalling, noting the serious breach of the restraining order and the significant distress caused. The sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment accounted for aggravating factors, the pandemic-related prison conditions, the Appellant’s poor health, and his guilty plea.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant should be granted extensions of time to appeal against conviction and sentence despite significant delays and unsubstantiated reasons for late application.
2. Whether the grounds of appeal against conviction, including alleged misrepresentation by legal representatives and mental health issues, render the conviction unsafe.
3. Whether the grounds of appeal against sentence, including claims of procedural irregularity and mental health considerations, justify a reduction or reconsideration of the sentence imposed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Alleged misrepresentation and inadequate representation by multiple legal representatives, including being denied a proper opportunity to speak and being incorrectly advised to plead guilty to the breach.
• The Appellant claimed his intention was to reconcile with the complainant, not to harm her.
• He was not provided with a copy of the non-molestation order or related documents and lacked proof of any court or solicitor communications.
• He suffered from severe mental health issues, including a nervous breakdown and medication side effects causing hallucinations, which impacted his understanding and conduct.
• At court, defective equipment prevented him from hearing proceedings properly, and he was misled by solicitors about the timing and possibility of appealing.
• Regarding sentence, he argued it was his first offence, the restraining order was improperly issued, and mental health issues were not adequately considered.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court thoroughly examined the applications for extensions of time and the proposed grounds of appeal. It found no good reason to justify the delays in applying for leave to appeal. The court reviewed the merits of the appeals regardless, concluding that the grounds were hopeless and not arguable.

In relation to the conviction appeal, the court agreed with the single judge’s assessment that the Appellant knowingly pleaded guilty to breaching the non-molestation order while contesting the attempted murder charge. The evidence, including the Appellant’s signed proof of evidence, confirmed knowledge of the breach and the violent conduct involved. There was no evidence that the Appellant was wrongly advised about his plea or appeal timing.

Regarding the appeal against sentence, the court concurred with the single judge’s view that the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge had taken into account the Appellant’s lack of previous convictions, health issues, and the seriousness of the breach. The restraining order was justified given the violent attack. No evidence was found that the Appellant was wrongly advised about sentence or appeal timing.

The court found the applications to be wholly without merit and therefore refused the extensions of time and leave to appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence, finding the grounds wholly without merit and the delay unjustified.

The Appellant has served the sentence imposed, so no loss of time order was made. However, the court ordered the Appellant to pay £84.84 for the costs of transcripts due to the meritless nature of the applications.

This decision directly affects the parties by finalizing the conviction and sentence without appeal and does not establish any new legal precedent.