R v Jack Taylor

Under the Street Robbery Guideline, seriousness is assessed by asking whether serious physical harm, within the meaning of that guideline, was caused. The assessment differs from the test for grave harm under the guideline for offences under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act. No fixed criteria apply. A borderline injury may justify a high starting point where its nature, consequences and the surrounding circumstances warrant it. Sentencing review is an overall exercise. The court asks whether the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Serious escalation in offending, supported by the evidence, can justify dangerousness and an extended licence despite prospects of rehabilitation.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Burnley to attempted robbery contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. He had threatened a taxi driver with a knife and stabbed him in the arm. HHJ Dodd imposed an extended sentence of nine years, comprising six years’ custody and three years on licence, after allowing a 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the classification of the injury under the Street Robbery Guideline, the weight given to personal mitigation, and the finding of dangerousness. The central issues were whether the injury constituted serious physical harm and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Appeal dismissed. The extended sentence of nine years, comprising six years’ custody and an extended licence period of three years, was within the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge.

1. Assessment of harm. The criteria for serious physical injury under the Street Robbery Guideline are distinct from the criteria for grave harm under the guideline applicable to offences under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act. The correct question is whether serious physical harm, within the meaning of the Street Robbery Guideline, was caused. In the absence of authoritative guidance, there are no fixed criteria for deciding whether harm is serious.
2. The injury was properly treated as borderline. Reliable evidence of long-term consequences would have supported category 1. Conversely, if placed in category 2, it was serious within that category and justified an upward adjustment. Since the attempted robbery was short-lived but close to a completed robbery, an adjusted starting point of seven years was justifiable whether the case was treated as category 1A, category 2A, or as falling between the categories.
3. Mitigation and dangerousness. The judge had considered the appellant’s childhood difficulties and emerging attempts to address them. Those matters did not outweigh the serious aggravation arising from his antecedents and the commission of a knife offence only two days after release from custody. An increase from seven to eight years was not open to proper criticism. Prospects of reducing future risk did not prevent a finding of dangerousness where the evidence showed a serious escalation in offending. There was ample evidence supporting the finding and the three-year extended licence period.
4. Appellate review. Review of sentence is not a mechanical or mathematical exercise. The court must stand back and ask whether the sentence, viewed overall, is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. This sentence satisfied neither description. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2025] EWCA Crim 514 — dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Burnley: on 15 March 2024, HHJ Dodd imposed an extended sentence of nine years for attempted robbery, comprising six years’ custody and three years on licence.