Taylor, R v

Where equally culpable co-defendants received different sentences solely because one lacked the others’ mitigating good character, a later reduction of that co-defendant’s sentence may require corresponding reductions for the others. Otherwise, an unjustified disparity may result.

This conclusion is confined to the particular sentencing structure. It does not encourage arithmetic comparisons of co-defendants’ previous convictions when advancing disparity arguments.

Taylor and Hattersley were convicted at Sheffield Crown Court of conspiracy to produce cannabis. Each received seven years’ imprisonment. A co-defendant, Doman, received eight years because he did not have their mitigating good character, although the sentencing judge treated all three as equally culpable organisers of the enterprise.

On a later appeal, this court reduced Doman’s sentence to seven years because eight years was too high. Following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, Taylor and Hattersley appealed against sentence. The issue was whether their sentences should be reduced correspondingly to preserve the distinction drawn at sentence between them and Doman.

1. Appeals allowed. The court quashed the seven-year sentences imposed on Taylor and Hattersley and substituted sentences of six years’ imprisonment.

2. The trial judge had treated Taylor and Hattersley as men of good character and Doman as not entitled to that mitigation. He nevertheless regarded the three men as equally culpable and as the principal organisers of the cannabis-production enterprise. The one-year difference between Doman’s sentence and theirs could only reflect their differing antecedents.

3. Doman’s subsequent reduction from eight to seven years was made because eight years was too high, not because the court accepted that Hattersley had played a more central role. Since Doman was equally culpable but lacked the mitigating good character available to the appellants, leaving their sentences unchanged would create an unjustified disparity. A right-thinking member of the public could regard that outcome as something having gone wrong.

4. The decision was confined to those circumstances. It was not encouragement for disparity arguments based on fine, arithmetical comparisons of co-defendants’ previous convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By reference of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the court allowed the appellants’ sentence appeals and reduced each sentence from seven years to six years.
• Sheffield Crown Court: On 4 July 2002, Taylor and Hattersley were each sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment after conviction for conspiracy to produce cannabis.