Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Taylor, R. v
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The Victim is entitled to lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Attorney Faure-Walker sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer to this court a sentence passed by Judge Hawks in the Crown Court at The City as unduly lenient. The Defendant was convicted after a trial of six counts of indecent assault (section 14(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956) and one count of rape (section 1 Sexual Offences Act 1956) for historical offences committed over 30 years earlier against a related family member ("Victim"). The offences occurred on three occasions over about two years when Victim was aged between 6 and 8 and the Defendant was aged 14 or 15. Judge Hawks described the Defendant's conduct at the time as "grossly immature" sexual experimentation and imposed a community order with a 40-day rehabilitation activity requirement. The Defendant is now aged 48, with no other convictions. On appeal, this court considered the sentencing exercise under relevant sentencing frameworks and adjusted the sentence by adding 300 hours of unpaid work.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence imposed by Judge Hawks was unduly lenient such that leave should be granted under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
- If the sentence was unduly lenient, whether an immediate custodial sentence was required given the seriousness of the offending.
- Whether the community order imposed complied with section 208(10) and (11) of the Sentencing Act 2020 requiring a punitive requirement unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- What sentence would have been likely to have been imposed if the Defendant had been sentenced shortly after the offending, applying the principles in R v Ahmed (Nair) [2023] EWCA Crim 281, [2023] 1 WLR 1858.
Arguments of the Parties
Attorney Faure-Walker (on behalf of the Solicitor General)
- The seriousness of the offending meant that only an immediate custodial sentence could be justified.
- Alternatively, any community order must include a punitive element, which was lacking in the community order passed by Judge Hawks.
Attorney Pencheon (on behalf of the Defendant)
- Accepted that the Sentencing Act 2020 requires a punitive requirement and did not claim exceptional circumstances.
- Proposed that compliance could be achieved by adding an unpaid work requirement to the community order.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Ahmed (Nair) [2023] EWCA Crim 281, [2023] 1 WLR 1858 |
Principles summarised at [32] for sentencing an adult for offences committed when a child, including:
i) the Children guideline is relevant and must be followed unless contrary to interests of justice;
ii) regard to the maximum sentence available at or shortly after the time of offending;
iii) the starting point is the sentence likely to have been imposed if the child had been sentenced shortly after the offence;
iv) if no custody was available then no custodial sentence may be imposed;
v) the court may exceed the child's applicable maximum only for good reason (adult status alone is not such a reason);
vi) subsequent events may justify adjustment of the starting point but must show good reason to impose a more severe sentence on the adult.
|
The court applied these principles to identify the sentence that would likely have been imposed in the early 1990s, accepted Judge Hawks' conclusion that the Defendant was a grossly immature child whose offending was sexual experimentation, and took that as the appropriate starting and finishing point absent good reason to increase severity.
|
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted the statutory entitlement to Victim anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. It applied the R v Ahmed framework to determine the sentence that would have been imposed shortly after the offending. The court accepted Judge Hawks' factual finding—based on his trial experience—that the Defendant was a grossly immature boy motivated by sexual experimentation and that, at the time, a non-custodial supervisory measure would more likely have been imposed than custody. The court rejected Attorney Faure-Walker's primary submission that only immediate custody was justified, concluding there was nothing in the Defendant's subsequent behaviour to justify departing from the starting point required by Ahmed. However, the court accepted Attorney Faure-Walker's alternative submission that the community order lacked the punitive requirement mandated by sections 208(10) and (11) of the Sentencing Act 2020. Attorney Pencheon conceded the need to comply and suggested unpaid work. The court noted the Defendant's living circumstances made an electronically monitored curfew inappropriate and that the Defendant was unemployed. The court determined that adding 300 hours of unpaid work provided the appropriate punitive element and thus granted leave and adjusted the sentence by adding that unpaid work requirement.
Holding and Implications
REFERENCE SUCCESSFUL IN PART
Holding: Leave to refer was granted. The court adjusted the community order by adding a requirement that the Defendant perform 300 hours of unpaid work. To that extent, the Reference is successful.
Implications: The direct effect is the modification of the Defendant's community order to include 300 hours unpaid work. The opinion confines its decision to adjusting the punitive content of the community order and does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond applying the principles in R v Ahmed and the statutory requirement in the Sentencing Act 2020.
Click here to read the full judgment