Taylor, R. v

When fixing the minimum term for imprisonment for public protection, the court must identify the appropriate notional determinate sentence, apply totality, and then set a proportionate minimum term. A sentencing court must have regard to applicable Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance under Criminal Justice Act 2003, and should explain any departure.

Remand time for such a sentence is considered under section 82A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. It is deducted from the minimum term and is not doubled. The rule for detention and training orders does not apply by analogy.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Sheffield of two robberies and two assaults occasioning actual bodily harm. He received concurrent sentences of imprisonment for public protection for the robberies, with an eight-year minimum term, and concurrent determinate sentences for the assaults.

On appeal, the court considered whether the minimum term was manifestly excessive, the correct allowance for 114 days spent on remand, and the lawfulness of the assault sentences. It was common ground that extended sentences, rather than determinate sentences, were required for the assaults.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The eight-year minimum term was manifestly excessive. The court substituted a minimum term of seven years less 114 days, namely six years and 224 days.

2. The judge was entitled to assess the aggregate criminality of the two separate robberies and to consider consecutive notional determinate sentences. However, he had not referred to the applicable Sentencing Guidelines Council robbery guideline. Under section 172 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court had to have regard to that guidance. A departure from directly applicable guidance should be apparent from the sentencing reasons.

3. The first robbery and associated assault properly fell within the guideline category with an eight-year starting point. The second robbery was a lower category, with a four-year starting point and a range of two to seven years. Applying totality, the appropriate notional determinate sentence was 14 years, rather than 16 years. The appropriate minimum term was therefore half that period: seven years.

4. For imprisonment for public protection, remand is addressed by section 82A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, not section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Section 82A requires the court to have regard to remand when fixing the minimum term; it does not treat remand as time served. The double-counting approach applicable to detention and training orders, explained in R v Eagles [2006] EWCA Crim 2368, depended on that different statutory scheme and had no application here.

5. The court also accepted that the determinate sentences for assault occasioning actual bodily harm were unlawful and that concurrent extended sentences under the 2003 Act were required.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the sentence appeal to the extent of substituting a seven-year minimum term less 114 days.

• Crown Court at Sheffield The appellant was convicted of two robberies and two assaults occasioning actual bodily harm and received imprisonment for public protection with an eight-year minimum term for the robberies.