Haq, R v

When reviewing a notified minimum term under Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the High Court must assess the seriousness of the offence by applying the general principles in Schedule 21. It must also have regard to the notified term and judicial recommendations. The court is not required simply to adopt an earlier tariff recommendation or the starting points in Schedule 21. A reduction based on post-conviction progress requires progress of an exceptional character. In a double murder involving planning and concealment or destruction of the bodies, those aggravating features may justify retaining the notified term despite positive prison reports.

The applicant had been convicted in 1991 of murdering his sister and Hashmat Ali and was serving mandatory life sentences. The Secretary of State notified him of a 16-year minimum term. Following the commencement of the transitional provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, he applied under paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 for a reduction.

The application required the court to determine the appropriate starting point, assess aggravating and mitigating factors, consider the trial judge’s and Lord Chief Justice’s recommendations, and decide whether the applicant’s subsequent prison progress justified a reduction. The court also considered whether an oral hearing was required.

1. The application was determined under paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The court was required to have regard to the seriousness of the offences, the notified minimum term, and the relevant general principles in Schedule 21. It was not required simply to adopt the earlier judicial recommendations or the starting points stated in Schedule 21.

2. The appropriate starting point was 12 years, reflecting the normal tariff at the time of sentence. The seriousness of the offences was substantially aggravated because they constituted a double murder and involved the concealment, destruction or dismemberment of the victims’ bodies. The court also considered the trial judge’s recommendation of 20 years, the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation of 15 years, the applicant’s previous convictions, and the absence of substantial mitigation.

3. Post-conviction conduct could be taken into account where it demonstrated exceptional progress. That threshold required progress clearly exceeding the good progress expected of mandatory life prisoners. The applicant’s positive reports and transfer recommendation did not meet that threshold and could not justify reducing the term below 16 years.

4. The application did not require an oral hearing. The applicant had waived any right to one, and the court considered it inappropriate in the circumstances.

5. The minimum period before the early release provisions applied was therefore maintained at 16 years, subject to credit for 7 months and 7 days spent on remand. The resulting minimum period was 15 years, 4 months and 23 days.