Trevis, R v

When determining a minimum term under the transitional provisions for murder, the court must assess seriousness by reference to the statutory principles, the applicable practice formerly followed by the Secretary of State, and any relevant judicial recommendation. A murder committed for gain during a burglary attracts the statutory higher starting point. Vulnerability arising from the victim’s age is aggravating. Lack of premeditation and the probable absence of an intention to kill are mitigating. The transitional ceiling prevents the court from imposing a term greater than the Secretary of State would probably have notified under the former practice. The 14-year norm identified in Sullivan was directed to more serious, intentional and premeditated murders, and did not govern a murder lacking those features.

Following a trial at Birmingham Crown Court, Tina Marie Trevis was convicted of murdering an 84-year-old woman during a burglary and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial judge had recommended a 16-year minimum term to the Secretary of State under the former tariff-setting regime.

The case was referred under paragraph 6 of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The court had to determine the minimum term for punishment and retribution, subject to the transitional restriction that the term could not exceed what the Secretary of State would probably have notified under the previous practice.

1. Determination without oral hearing. The reference was determined without an oral hearing under paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The circumstances did not justify the exceptional direction of an oral hearing.
2. Applicable statutory framework. In assessing seriousness under section 269 of the 2003 Act, the court had regard to the general principles in Schedule 21, the trial judge’s earlier recommendation, and paragraph 8 of Schedule 22. Paragraph 8 prohibited a minimum term greater than that which the Secretary of State would probably have notified under the practice followed before December 2002.
3. Starting point and factors. The appropriate starting point was 30 years because the murder was committed for gain during a burglary, engaging paragraphs 5(1)(b) and 5(2)(c) of Schedule 21. The victim’s age made her particularly vulnerable and was aggravating under paragraph 10(b). The absence of premeditation and the probable conviction on an intention to cause grievous bodily harm rather than an intention to kill were mitigating under paragraph 11(a) and (b). The absence of remorse and the fact of conviction after trial were also taken into account.
4. Transitional practice. The court relied on Sullivan [2004] EWCA Crim 1762, including its discussion of Lord Bingham CJ’s 1997 letter and Lord Woolf CJ’s 2000 Practice Statement. The 14-year period was intended as the norm for more serious, intentional and premeditated murders. The present case was not within the exceptional category of the gravest multiple or serial murders.
5. Order. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating features, the court confirmed a minimum term of 16 years. The release provisions in section 28(5) to (8) of the Crime Sentences Act 1997 were to apply after that period. The Parole Board could then direct release only if satisfied that continued detention was unnecessary for public protection; any release would be on a life licence.

The judgment records that the defendant was convicted and sentenced at Birmingham Crown Court on 4 July 2003. The present court determined the minimum term pursuant to Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003; no appellate decision is stated.