R v Christopher Scott Taylor

Whether a custodial sentence should be suspended is essentially a matter for the sentencing judge’s discretion. The appellate court should not interfere unless that discretion was exercised improperly or unreasonably. It will not do so merely because it might have reached a different conclusion.

The sentencing judge must balance the considerations for and against suspension by reference to the imposition guideline. Where the judge has applied the correct approach and the resulting decision is not unreasonable, the sentence will stand. Serious repeated domestic abuse, including intentional strangulation and assaults in the victim’s home, may support immediate custody despite substantial mitigation.

After pleading guilty before South Shields Magistrates’ Court, the appellant was committed for sentence in respect of offences including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, intentional strangulation and common assault. The Crown Court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne imposed 14 months’ imprisonment for intentional strangulation, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

The appeal challenged the refusal to suspend the custodial sentence, rather than its length. The appellant relied on his early guilty plea, previous good character, rehabilitation prospects, the victim’s position and the effect on his business. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had misapplied the imposition guideline or exercised his discretion improperly.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. Appellate restraint. The decision whether to suspend a custodial sentence is essentially a matter for the sentencing judge’s discretion. The Court of Appeal will not interfere unless that discretion was exercised improperly or unreasonably, even if it might itself have reached a different conclusion (para [13]).
2. Application of the guideline. The sentencing judge correctly referred to the imposition guideline and balanced the competing considerations for and against suspension. There was no error in his approach (para [11]).
3. Application to the offending. The offending involved repeated assaults against a partner in her home. It included holding her by the neck and spitting in her face while she was in bed. The court considered the offending sufficiently serious that the decision to require immediate custody was not unreasonable (para [14]).
4. The court stated that it would not have interfered even had it disagreed with the sentencing judge’s conclusion. In any event, it did not disagree with that conclusion. The sentence and the refusal to suspend it therefore stood (paras [13]–[14]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2026] EWCA Crim 67, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne — On 28 October 2025, Recorder Latimer imposed 14 months’ imprisonment for intentional strangulation, with concurrent sentences of 26 weeks and eight weeks for the other offences.
• South Shields Magistrates’ Court — On 26 September 2025, the appellant pleaded guilty and was committed for sentence pursuant to sections 14 and 20 of the Sentencing Act 2020.