R v Richard Andrew Taylor

In sentencing for serious sexual offences, previous good character or exemplary conduct ordinarily attracts little or no significant weight, particularly where the offence is grave. It is distinct from merely having no previous convictions, and mitigation should not normally be allowed where such conduct facilitated the offending. A sentence must remain just and proportionate overall. A special custodial sentence under the Sentencing Act 2020 must be structured as a custodial term plus the further licence period; an overlapping structure should be corrected without increasing the intended sentence.

The applicant was convicted after trial in the Crown Court at Ipswich of sexual offences against two complainants, C1 and C2, committed between 1999 and 2003. On 28 September 2024, HHJ Martyn Levett imposed a total sentence of 20 years' imprisonment and two years on licence.

The application for leave to appeal against sentence was referred to the Full Court because of errors in structuring special custodial sentences under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The applicant also argued that a consecutive sentence for one offence was manifestly excessive and that insufficient weight had been given to his good character.

1. Disposition. Leave to appeal was granted on the sentence-structure issue. The appeal succeeded to that extent. The good-character and manifest-excessiveness grounds failed. The sentence was restructured without increasing the intended total of 20 years' imprisonment and two years on licence.
2. Good character. The offence-specific guideline distinguished previous good character or exemplary conduct from simply having no previous convictions. For serious sexual offences, such character should not normally receive significant weight or justify a reduction. Where it facilitated the offending, mitigation should not normally be allowed and the conduct may aggravate the offence. There was no suggestion that the applicant's character had facilitated the offending, but the judge had nevertheless given it proper and measured consideration.
3. Totality and consecutive sentences. The offending against C1 was more extensive than that against C2, but the sentencing task was to impose an overall sentence that was just and proportionate while recognising the lifelong harm to both complainants. Applying the current guideline for inciting child sexual activity with a child under 13, the five-year consecutive sentence for count 19 fell within the guideline range of five to 10 years and was not manifestly excessive.
4. Structure under section 278. A special custodial sentence requires an appropriate custodial term followed by the further licence period. The Crown Court's structure created an overlap between custodial terms and extended licence periods. Count 10 was reduced from 11 to 10 years and made the lead determinate sentence for C1. Count 6 was quashed and replaced by one year in custody and one year on extended licence, consecutive to count 10. For C2, count 19 became the five-year lead sentence; counts 15 and 17 were concurrent with it, while counts 16 and 18 were consecutive to it.
5. The Court noted that exceptional progress in prison occurring after sentence did not make the sentence wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

• Crown Court at Ipswich: Following trial on 25 June 2024, HHJ Martyn Levett convicted the applicant of sexual offences and sentenced him on 28 September 2024 to 20 years' imprisonment and two years on licence.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The application for leave was referred to the Full Court. Leave was granted on the sentence-structure issue, and the sentence was restructured; the other grounds failed: [2025] EWCA Crim 1186.