Taylor Meanley v Regina

When fixing the minimum term for an offender who was under 18, the court must adopt an individualised approach. The Sentencing Council’s Guideline remains relevant even though detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure is fixed by law. Emotional and developmental age, maturity, learning difficulties, neglect and other background factors may materially reduce culpability.

Where a young person faces sentence for very serious offending, obtaining a pre-sentence report is strongly advisable if the court lacks full information about those matters. Parity between co-defendants does not require equal terms where their ages materially differ. The court noted that deterrence is not listed as a youth sentencing principle in section 58 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Taylor Meanley v Regina concerned an appeal against sentence by a defendant aged 16½ when he murdered Lewis Williams by firing a home-made firearm from a moving car. He had also been convicted of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life and had pleaded guilty to other offences.

The Crown Court at Sheffield imposed detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure with a minimum term of 27 years, concurrent with 13 years for the firearms offence. The appellant argued that the judge had failed properly to account for his chronological and developmental age, difficult background and learning difficulties, had placed undue weight on parity with an older co-defendant, and should have obtained a pre-sentence report. The central issue was the appropriate reduction from the statutory starting point for a young offender.

1. Appeal allowed. The minimum term of 27 years was manifestly excessive. It was quashed and replaced by a minimum term of 22 years, less 287 days served on remand. The other sentences were left undisturbed.
2. The Sentencing Council’s Guideline remained applicable when fixing the minimum term for a child convicted of murder, notwithstanding that the sentence of detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure was fixed by law. The approach had to be individualised. Emotional and developmental age and maturity were at least as important as chronological age, and the court had to consider factors such as learning difficulties, neglect and abuse. The approach was consistent with R v DM and SC [2019] EWCA Crim 1354 and the principle stated in R v Clarke [2018] EWCA Crim 185.
3. There was no statutory requirement to obtain a pre-sentence report, but it was strongly advisable in serious cases involving young persons where no such report existed. The court should obtain full information about mental health, learning difficulties, brain injury or traumatic experience, speech and language difficulties, communication issues, vulnerability to self-harm, and past loss, neglect or abuse. R v PS and others [2019] EWCA Crim 2286 supported the wider need for expert assistance. The fuller report obtained on appeal showed matters directly relevant to the minimum term which had been unknown to the sentencing judge.
4. The judge had given insufficient weight to the appellant’s age, developmental immaturity and background. He had also been wrong, if he had allowed a desire for exact parity with Parkes to influence the sentence. Where co-defendants differ materially in age, any disparity should be a fair reflection of that difference. The guidance in R v Kyries Davies [2020] EWCA Crim 921 and AG’s reference Nos 143 and 144 of 2006 [2007] EWCA Crim 1245 supported that approach.
5. Starting from the 12-year statutory starting point under Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, a substantial increase was required by the seriousness of the offending. The court accepted that an adult equivalent would have attracted a minimum term of 33 years. A reduction of 11 years was appropriate to reflect the appellant’s age, lack of developmental maturity, family circumstances and educational deficits, producing a minimum term of 22 years.
6. The court did not consider that deterrence had increased the sentence. Section 57(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act 2020 concerns adult sentencing purposes and does not apply to offenders under 18 at conviction; section 58 does not identify deterrence as a youth sentencing principle. The court noted, without deciding the issue, the acceptance of deterrence as a factor in R v Karolia and Others [2021] EWCA Crim 1839.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Appeal allowed and the minimum term reduced from 27 years to 22 years, with credit for 287 days served on remand. Other aspects of sentence were unchanged. [2022] EWCA Crim 1065
• Crown Court at Sheffield. The appellant was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure with a minimum term of 27 years, concurrent with 13 years’ detention for the firearms offence.