Taylor, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 838

Case No 200705992 A8[2008] EWCA Crim 838
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Friday, 4th April 2008
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE PILL
MR JUSTICE FORBES
MR JUSTICE BLAIR
Between
R E G I N ACrownv
Between
MICHAEL TAYLOR
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofWordWave International LimitedA Merrill Communications Company190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AGTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr N Peacock appeared for AppellantMr T Parkin appeared for Crown
J U D G M E N T
[1]MR JUSTICE FORBES: On 5th October 2007 in the Newcastle Crown Court this appellant pleaded guilty to a single count of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommended minimum term of 15 years, less the 94 days that he had spent in custody on remand. He now appeals against that sentence by leave of the single judge.[2]The brief facts are these. The deceased, Miss Rebecca Hood, was born in 1989. She met the appellant, who was 11 years older than her, when she went to work for Storey Carpets where he was employed as a warehouse man. They began a relationship after a works Christmas party in 2005. Colleagues described Miss Hood as a friendly and outgoing person, but they described the appellant as immature, insecure and possessive.[3]Sadly, it appears that the appellant bullied and humiliated Miss Hood at work. He talked openly about their sex life, he showed photographs of them together in sexual circumstances and encouraged her to experiment with drugs. Nevertheless, they moved in to live together. The appellant continued to bully Miss Hood at work and she ended up leaving her job. In due course, they moved to a flat owned by the appellant's sister.[4]The condition of the flat was poor and Miss Hood eventually moved back home to live with her parents at the end of May 2007. At that stage she made it clear that for her the relationship was over, although she was happy to remain on friendly terms with the appellant. As a result, she regained her confidence and began socialising again. However, the appellant was persistent in making clear that he wanted her to come back. Eventually Miss Hood agreed to go out with the appellant on 30th June 2007. It was her intention to make her position absolutely clear to the appellant. However, he intended to persuade her to resume their relationship. In due course, they went back to his house. CCTV footage shows that they were not walking hand in hand, but that there was a gap between them.[5]On the way back, they saw a mutual friend. It appears that the appellant was angered by comments made about Miss Hood's possible involvement in another relationship. After they arrived at his home, Miss Hood telephoned a friend and expressed alarm about the appellant's behaviour. She said that she thought he had taken an overdose of drugs. Nevertheless, she remained at his house. The following morning at about 11 o'clock the appellant rang his sister. He described his enthusiasm about the night out that he and the deceased had shared together the previous night. However, two and a half hours later he telephoned his sister again and told her that he had killed Miss Hood.[6]His sister went to the house and the appellant showed her Miss Hood's body, which by that time was under a blanket. The appellant prevented his sister from telephoning the police. The cause of death was strangulation. It appears death had not been immediate. There was petechial bruising which indicated that death would have occurred within a period of some 30 seconds to two minutes. The appellant had strangled Miss Hood by use of his belt. The belt had been threaded through its buckle. The deceased had also sustained a blow to the back of her head, either as a result of a blow from the appellant or as a result of falling to the floor. She also had defensive injuries to her lower arm and left thumb that were consistent with warding off blows and with trying to remove the belt from around her neck.[7]The appellant left the house and travelled around the local area telephoning friends. He rejected all advice to obtain medical assistance or go to the police. He said that he and the deceased had argued about their separation. Eventually, the appellant's sister did report the matter to the police. Miss Hood's body was not discovered and pronounced dead until 6.20 that evening. The appellant was arrested at 9.15 pm. He had no injuries and he made no comment when interviewed.[8]In victim impact statements which we have also read, the deceased parents spoke in very moving terms about the loss of their daughter and their resulting sense of emptiness.[9]When passing sentence,

the judge said this:

"In setting the minimum term, I have identified the appropriate starting point as being one of 15 years. The Crown have submitted that the aggravating features are as follows: the use of the belt, which they submit indicates a degree of premeditation, and your failure to get help either from the police or the medical services indicates a lack of remorse. Mr Hill submits that those suggested aggravating features are minimal and that this was not pre-planned but was an explosion of temper. Your attitude afterwards, Mr Hill suggests, indicates a reaction of shock and horror to what you had done rather than to any lack of remorse. It is agreed that the only mitigating factor is your plea of guilty and that, entered at the first reasonable opportunity, entitles you to the maximum credit of one sixth. I take the view that the aggravating features cannot be described as minimal and must require me to increase the minimum term above the 15-year starting point. However, I am persuaded that the maximum discount for a plea of guilty enables me to bring the figure back to the starting point of 15 years."
[10]The appellant is now aged 30. He has appeared before the court on 28 previous occasions for a total of 110 offences, committed between 1989 and 2003. His previous appearances were largely for offences of burglary, theft, vehicle taking and criminal damage. He has previously been dealt with by way of a range of non-custodial and short custodial sentences. His previous convictions included three common assaults, one assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one offence of cruelty to animals. However, he does not have a previous record of offences of serious violence.[11]On behalf of the appellant, Mr Peacock submitted that the specified minimum term was manifestly excessive because the judge had given too much weight to the aggravating features, namely the use of the belt, indicating some premeditation, and the failure to seek help indicating a lack of remorse. Mr Peacock's submission was, in short, that, as a result of attaching too much significance to these aggravating features, the judge had arrived at too high a figure before applying the appropriate discount for a plea of guilty.[12]We are not persuaded by those submissions. Although this very experienced judge did not indicate the precise figure he had in mind to take account of the identified aggravating features, it is quite clear from his sentencing remarks that he increased the starting point of 15 years to 18 years to take account of those factors. Mr Peacock very properly accepted that that was so. In our judgment, an increase of 3 years in the starting point to take account of the identified aggravating features was entirely appropriate and cannot be faulted. In our view, the judge was entirely right to reject the submission, repeated in this court, that the aggravating features were minimal in nature. They plainly were not. For those reasons, therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

LORD JUSTICE PILL: Thank you, Mr Peacock.