Taylor & Anor, R. v

In fixing minimum terms for murder under Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21 starting points must not be applied mechanically. A sharp statutory age boundary must not produce irrationally divergent terms for offenders of equal culpability.

On an appeal against a minimum term, the question remains whether the term was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Age, maturity and previous history must be assessed on the evidence. Material relevant to dangerousness may also bear on the minimum term. A young offender’s personal mitigation may be outweighed by full participation in an exceptionally grave murder.

Joel Taylor and Joshua Thomas were convicted at Swansea Crown Court of the murder of Ben Bellamy. Thomas was also convicted of robbery and Taylor had pleaded guilty to robbery. The murder occurred during a robbery when Taylor was 17½ and Thomas was just over 15½.

On 16 June 2006, Roderick Evans J ordered both appellants to be detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He fixed Taylor’s minimum term at 22 years and Thomas’s at 18 years. They appealed against those minimum terms.

The central issue was whether, in light of their youth and personal circumstances, the terms were wrong in principle or manifestly excessive under Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

1. Both appeals were dismissed. The applicable appellate question was whether the minimum term was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

2. Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 prescribed a 12-year starting point for an offender under 18, whereas an 18-year-old committing murder in the course of robbery attracted a 30-year starting point. Those starting points could not be used mechanically. Offenders of equal culpability who fell on opposite sides of the age boundary should not receive significantly divergent terms merely because of that boundary.

3. Taylor’s 22-year minimum term was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. He was only six months short of 18, the judge had correctly identified the aggravating and mitigating features, and his previous wounding conviction was relevant. Material bearing on dangerousness, including his attitude to the earlier offence and lack of remorse, could also be relevant to fixing the minimum term. His reported immaturity did not amount to a clinically diagnosable developmental deficit and could not properly have a sizeable effect on the term.

4. Thomas’s age, stronger evidence of immaturity and absence of convictions caused greater concern. However, he was a full participant in an exceptionally grave murder. The four-year differential from Taylor’s term sufficiently reflected his personal mitigation. Eighteen years was at the top of the permissible bracket and a longer term might have been manifestly excessive, but the term was not out of line with the comparable authority considered by the court.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellants’ challenges to minimum terms of 22 years and 18 years were dismissed in [2007] EWCA Crim 803.
• Crown Court at Swansea: On 10 April 2006 Taylor and Thomas were convicted of murder, with robbery convictions as stated. On 16 June 2006 Roderick Evans J ordered detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure and fixed their minimum terms.