Johnston, R v

For a murder committed during the relevant transitional period, the specified period must be assessed under Amendment No 8 to the Consolidated Practice Direction, rather than under the earlier Lord Chief Justice’s letter. The normal starting point is 12 years unless the offence has exceptionally high culpability or the victim has particular vulnerability.

Using a motor vehicle as a weapon against a group is an aggravating feature, since the number of people endangered cannot be known in advance. Remorse may mitigate sentence, but its absence is not an aggravating feature. The sentencing court must then balance all aggravating and mitigating features proportionately.

The appellant was convicted at Winchester Crown Court of murdering Christopher Vickers by driving his car at a group of residents, mounting the pavement and running over the deceased. He received life imprisonment with a specified period of 18 years, less one year spent on remand.

After a Single Judge refused leave, the appellant renewed his application to appeal against that period. The appeal concerned the applicable transitional sentencing guidance following R v Sullivan [2004] EWCA Crim 1762, and whether the aggravating and mitigating features justified an 18-year period.

1. The court granted leave and allowed the appeal to the extent of reducing the specified period. The 18-year period was excessive and was quashed. It was replaced by a period of 15 years, less the year already spent in custody on remand.

2. The correct transitional guidance was Amendment No 8 to the Consolidated Practice Direction, which followed R v Sullivan [2004] EWCA Crim 1762. For an offence committed after 31 May 2002 and before 18 December 2003, the normal starting point was 12 years where the offence lacked features of exceptionally high culpability or particular victim vulnerability. That, rather than the earlier 14-year guidance, was the proper starting point.

3. The appellant’s use of a car as a weapon against a group was aggravating. It created an unknown risk of death or injury to multiple people and was comparable in that respect to the use of explosives. The other aggravating circumstances included the danger to the group and the consequences of driving over the deceased while attempting to leave. Those matters would have justified a period of 16 years before mitigation.

4. The absence of remorse could not itself aggravate sentence, although genuine remorse could mitigate it. The judge’s findings that there was no intention to kill and no premeditation were mitigating features. Balancing those matters against the aggravation produced a proper specified period of 15 years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — the appellant renewed his application after a Single Judge refused leave. Leave was granted and the appeal against the specified period was allowed in part: [2004] EWCA Crim 2806.
• Winchester Crown Court — on 23 March 2004, following conviction for murder, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a specified period of 18 years, less one year spent on remand.