Rex vs Marcus Taylor

This case involved an appeal against the sentence of Marcus Taylor, who was convicted of rape, assault by penetration, and sexual assault. The appeal raised issues regarding the severity of the sentence and the findings of severe psychological harm, particular vulnerability, and significant planning.

TLDR:

• Marcus Taylor appealed against his sentence for rape, assault by penetration, and sexual assault.
• The court examined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.
• The court upheld the original sentence, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings.

In March 2023, the complainant, a 27-year-old woman, contacted Marcus Taylor, whom she had known for about a year, for help with her car repairs. On 9 March 2023, Taylor visited her home to discuss potential cars. Despite her attempts to cancel the meeting due to tiredness, Taylor insisted on coming over.

Upon arrival, Taylor and the complainant discussed cars until one of her children needed attention. When she returned, Taylor assaulted her by grabbing her hair and attempting to kiss her. He then proceeded to sexually assault her despite her resistance, culminating in rape. The complainant called the police immediately after Taylor left.

During the police interview, Taylor denied the allegations, claiming the encounter was consensual. However, the trial judge found him guilty based on the evidence presented.

The sentencing judge categorized the offence as Category A due to significant planning, severe psychological harm, and the victim's particular vulnerability. The judge imposed an extended sentence of 18 years, including a 12-year custodial element and a six-year extension period for the rape, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

On appeal, Taylor argued that the sentence was excessive and challenged the findings of severe psychological harm, particular vulnerability, and significant planning. The Court of Appeal, however, upheld the original sentence. The court found that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence, including victim personal statements and the circumstances of the offence.

The Court of Appeal emphasized that the trial judge was in the best position to assess the evidence and make factual determinations. The court also noted the relevance of Taylor's previous conviction for rape in aggravating the sentence.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the extended sentence as appropriate given the gravity of the offences and the impact on the victim.

Legal representatives: Mr. M Rowliffe for the Appellant, Mr. R Milne for the Crown.

Judicial Panel: Lord Justice Dingemans, Mrs. Justice Farbey DBE, Her Honour Judge de Bertodano.

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCA Crim 615