R v Christopher Scott Taylor

Lady Justice May:

1. This is an appeal against sentence brought with leave of the single judge. On 26 September 2025 having pleaded guilty before South Shields Magistrates' Court, the appellant was committed for sentence pursuant to section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in respect of an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and another of intentional strangulation and, pursuant to section 20 of the Sentencing Act 2020, in respect of an offence of assault by beating.

2. On 28 October 2025 in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne, the appellant was sentenced to a total of 14 months' imprisonment for the offence of intentional strangulation, with concurrent sentences of 26 weeks and eight weeks respectively for the offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault. The facts of the offending

3. The appellant and Hannah Bartle were in a relationship for two years during which they lived together. The relationship became strained after a year and there were regular arguments. On 12 April 2025 the appellant returned home at 9 o'clock in the evening having been out drinking. He told Miss Bartle that his mobile telephone had died. Disbelieving him she asked to see the telephone. The appellant tried to shut the living room door to prevent her entering the room. When she did get inside the appellant pushed her by the throat onto the sofa four or five times.

4. Miss Bartle went and stood in the hallway. The appellant then grabbed her by the throat and pinned her against the front door. He told her, "One punch and I could break your jaw." The relationship ended that evening.

5. The appellant and Miss Bartle placed their home up for sale. Both continued to stay there in the meantime, sleeping in separate rooms.

6. On 25 May 2025 Miss Bartle had been out in Newcastle City Centre with a friend when she came across the appellant in a bar. He called Miss Bartle a "fat slag" and she left the bar.

7. At 8 o'clock the following morning the appellant went into Miss Bartle's bedroom, pulled the duvet away from her and grabbed her mobile telephone, telling her that he wanted to see which "lads" she had been texting. Miss Bartle went to the bathroom and on her return asked the appellant for her mobile telephone back. He followed her into the bedroom, pinned her down on the bed by her throat and spat in her face several times. The appellant then went and sat at the end of the bed. Miss Bartle called a friend who could hear what the appellant was saying to Miss Bartle. Her friend ended the call and telephoned the police.

8. The appellant was arrested. During his police interview later that day the appellant claimed Miss Bartle had been the aggressor and that he had acted in self-defence. He denied pinning her down but did acknowledge that he had spat in her face. In the event, as we have said, he pleaded guilty on the first occasion that the case came before the South Shields Magistrates' Court. Sentence

9. The appellant was aged 40 at the date of sentence. He had no previous convictions. There was a single caution from 2001 which the judge rightly disregarded. There was a pre-sentence report which we have read carefully. There were victim personal statements dated 21 June 2025 and 2 October 2025 which we have also read.

10. As the challenge on this appeal is not to the length of sentence but to the judge's decision not to suspend the sentence, it is unnecessary to go into any detail as to the process by which the judge arrived at a custodial sentence of 14 months. We wish to commend the judge, however, on the careful approach which he took.

11. Having explained how he arrived at a custodial sentence of 14 months the judge turned to consider whether he could suspend that sentence. He referenced the imposition guideline, correctly identifying the need to balance the considerations for and against suspension which are there set out. He concluded: "Doing that balancing exercise, despite everything that your counsel has said, I have decided that the seriousness of the offences of domestic abuse, including one of suffocation, means that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody." Grounds of appeal

12. Mr Downey, who appears for the appellant today, as he did at sentence, argues that ordering the 14 months to be served immediately has resulted in a sentence which is manifestly excessive. He points to the early guilty plea, previous good character, a recommendation in the pre-sentence report supporting rehabilitation, the identification by the author of that report as low risk of re-offending, the victim's support for a rehabilitative outcome and the adverse impact upon employees in the appellant's own small business. Mr Downey argues that the judge failed to give adequate weight to this strong mitigation and that he misapplied the imposition guideline in declining to suspend the sentence which he passed. Mr Downey suggests that a sentence of 14 months suspended for 18 to 24 months with rehabilitative requirements would have been sufficient. Decision

13. We are in no doubt that Mr Downey will have made all of these points to the judge at the sentencing hearing. The judge refers to "everything your counsel has said" but as this court has observed many times, the decision as to whether or not to suspend is essentially one for the discretion of the sentencing judge. Unless that discretion has been exercised improperly or unreasonably this court will not interfere even if another judge might have reached a different conclusion. The judge here had regard to the correct guideline and to the competing considerations for and against suspension. There was no error in his approach and the decision he reached was not at all unreasonable.

14. This being so, we would not have interfered with his decision even if we ourselves were to have disagreed with it. As it happens, we do not disagree. This was serious offending involving repeated assaults against a partner in her own home, including, on the second occasion, holding her down by her neck and spitting in her face whilst she lay in her own bed. For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected]