Attorney General Reference No 130 Of 2004

For a murder committed before December 2003, the applicable mandatory-life-sentence Practice Direction permits a starting point of 15 to 16 years, subject to an upward adjustment for serious aggravating features. A guilty plea and the offender’s youth may justify reduction, but the resulting minimum term must properly reflect the gravity of the offending.

In an Attorney-General reference concerning a minimum term, Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 36(3)A removes the usual double-jeopardy consideration. A minimum term that gives excessive credit for mitigation may therefore be quashed and increased as unduly lenient.

The offender pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court before Astill J to murder and to attempting to cause grievous bodily harm. The offences involved a sexually motivated assault on one woman and, shortly afterwards, the murder of another woman in a sustained and exceptionally violent attack.

Astill J imposed life imprisonment for murder with a minimum term of 14 years, less time spent in custody, and a concurrent eight-year sentence for the attempted offence. The Attorney-General obtained leave to refer the minimum term as unduly lenient.

The central issue was whether the judge had allowed an excessive reduction from the 20-year starting point justified by the aggravating circumstances.

1. The reference was allowed. The 14-year minimum term was unduly lenient. It was quashed and replaced with a minimum term of 16 years’ custody, subject to credit for one year and three days already spent in custody.

2. The court applied the transitional provisions of the Practice Direction (Crime Mandatory Life Sentences) (No 2) to this pre-December 2003 murder. The normal starting point was 15 to 16 years. The judge was entitled to increase it to 20 years because the murder was sexually motivated, involved sexual maltreatment and extreme gratuitous violence, followed pursuit of the victim while armed, and occurred about two hours after a separate sexually motivated assault.

3. The offender’s youth and guilty plea were material mitigation. His age properly reduced the 20-year figure. The plea also merited credit, despite being entered shortly before trial after substantial evidence had been obtained. The proper total reduction was four years: about 18 months for the plea and about two-and-a-half years for age. A six-year reduction failed adequately to reflect the seriousness of the offending.

4. By section 36(3)A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the usual double-jeopardy consideration did not apply to this minimum-term reference. The court therefore substituted the longer term without that restraint.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Attorney-General’s reference under section 36 was allowed. The court quashed the 14-year minimum term and substituted 16 years.

• Central Criminal Court: Astill J sentenced the offender to life imprisonment for murder with a 14-year minimum term, and to eight years’ custody concurrently for attempting to cause grievous bodily harm.