R v Chloe Taylor

Sentencing-guideline references to official warnings are to be applied practically and with common sense. They are not to be construed as statutory language. Repeated warnings from local-authority officials and police officers to control and secure dangerous dogs may justify high culpability where the offender fails to act on them.

The impact of immediate custody on young children and family life must be considered. It does not, however, render custody avoidable where the seriousness of the offending, the proper guideline assessment and available credit produce a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum capable of suspension.

The applicant pleaded guilty in Portsmouth Crown Court to two offences arising from two dogs being dangerously out of control and causing grave injury to an elderly man. She received concurrent sentences of 27 months’ imprisonment and a ten-year disqualification from keeping a dog.

She sought leave to appeal against sentence. She contended that the judge wrongly treated prior communications as official warnings for guideline purposes and failed properly to consider whether immediate custody was unavoidable, particularly given the effect on her five young children.

The central issues were the correct culpability category and whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the offending in Category 1A. References in the relevant sentencing guideline to official warnings are not to be read as statutory language. They must be applied practically and with common sense.

2. The applicant had repeatedly been told by persons in official authority, including local-authority officials and a police officer, that the dogs had to be controlled and secured. The judge was entitled to treat this as official warning of the risk posed by the dogs. Her knowledge that the dogs could jump the fence reinforced that conclusion.

3. A notional post-trial sentence of three years’ custody was within the guideline range. A 25 per cent reduction for guilty pleas entered at the plea and trial preparation hearing produced 27 months’ imprisonment. The sentence therefore exceeded the two-year maximum capable of suspension.

4. The court took account of the impact on the applicant’s young children, later information about the family’s difficulties, and the importance of family life reflected in Article 8 of the ECHR. The principles in R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214 and the fact-sensitive approach illustrated by R v Thompson [2024] EWCA Crim 1038 did not make immediate custody avoidable on these facts. The sentence was not arguably wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

5. The court corrected the Crown Court record. No surcharge had been imposed by the sentencing judge. Although a surcharge is statutory, the court could not impose one after refusing leave, because its powers were constrained by section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence and declared that the recorded surcharge did not apply: [2025] EWCA Crim 450.
2. Crown Court at Portsmouth — on 30 January 2025 imposed concurrent sentences of 27 months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to two counts.