Belnavis, Re Setting of Minimum Terms In Relation To

When determining a minimum term under Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court must assess the seriousness of the murder by applying the general principles in Schedule 21 and having regard to recommendations made by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. The Schedule 21 starting points are not exhaustive of aggravating factors. A drugs-related revenge motive may constitute a serious aggravating factor, even where the offender was a secondary participant and had no personal involvement in the drugs activity. Mitigating features, including lack of intention to kill and a reduced role, must be weighed against aggravating features. The court must also respect the statutory ceiling based on the tariff likely to have been notified under the pre-December 2002 practice.

Robert Belnavis was convicted of murdering Victor Jumah and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Secretary of State referred the case to the High Court under Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 because no minimum term had been notified under the former tariff-setting regime.

The trial judge had recommended 14 years, while the Lord Chief Justice had indicated that at least 15 years was appropriate. The issue was the minimum period which the court should determine, subject to the statutory restriction that it could not exceed the period likely to have been notified under the former practice.

1. Statutory framework. The court applied paragraph 6 of Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Under paragraph 7, it had to consider the seriousness of the offence by reference to Schedule 21 and also have regard to the recommendations of the trial judge and Lord Chief Justice. Paragraph 8 imposed a ceiling based on the tariff likely to have been notified under the pre-December 2002 practice.
2. Starting point and aggravation. None of the cases specifically identified in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 21 applied. The appropriate starting point was therefore 15 years under paragraph 6. The statutory lists of aggravating factors were not exhaustive. The drugs-related revenge motive and the extent of the violence were serious aggravating features. The fact that Belnavis had no personal role in the drugs activity did not reduce the assessment, because he was convicted as a knowing participant in the joint enterprise.
3. Mitigation. The absence of an intention to kill and Belnavis’s secondary role were mitigating factors, but they were outweighed by the aggravating features. His conduct in prison, assistance to the authorities and family circumstances did not justify a lower term. The court also found that his conduct did not amount to the exceptional progress described in Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Cole [2003] EWHC Admin 1789.
4. Final determination. Although a term of 17 years would have been appropriate under the 2003 Act assessment, the statutory ceiling required the court to determine the period likely to have been notified under the former practice. That period was assessed as 15 years. The minimum term was therefore set at 14 years and 8 months after deducting four months spent on remand.

The judgment records that the conviction was challenged in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), but leave to appeal was refused on 6 February 2003. This judgment concerned the subsequent statutory referral by the Secretary of State to the High Court for determination of the minimum term under Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.