Wynne, R. v

The fixing and appellate review of a minimum term for murder is an evaluative exercise, not a mathematical calculation. The court must assess the specified period against all the circumstances and decide whether it falls within the proper sentencing range and the sentencing judge’s margin of discretion.

An intention to cause grievous bodily harm rather than death may mitigate, but it is not invariably mitigating and its weight depends on the facts. The planned possession and use of a weapon capable of causing grave injury may aggravate the offence, even where there was no intent to kill. An appellate court should reduce a minimum term that is too high after the aggravating and mitigating features have been weighed together.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to arson and later to murder. He admitted striking the deceased once in the neck with a meat cleaver after accusing her of taking heroin. He subsequently concealed, dismembered and disposed of her body.

The sentencing judge imposed life imprisonment and fixed a minimum term of 21 years, less 181 days on remand. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against that term. He contended that the meat cleaver should not have been treated as aggravating, and that insufficient credit had been given for the absence of intent to kill, lack of premeditation, guilty plea and limited history of violence.

The central issue was whether the resulting minimum term was manifestly excessive.

1. The application was granted and the appeal against sentence allowed. The court quashed the minimum term of 21 years less 181 days on remand and substituted 18 years less 181 days.
2. Applying R v Peters and Ors [2005] EWCA Crim 605, the court held that fixing a minimum term is not a mathematical exercise. The appellate court must consider the specified period in light of all the circumstances and determine whether it lies within the appropriate sentencing range and the sentencing judge’s margin of judgment and discretion.
3. Paragraph 11A of Schedule 21 permits an intention to cause grievous bodily harm, rather than an intention to kill, to be treated as mitigation. It does not require that result in every case. Its force may be limited where the circumstances demonstrate preparation for serious violence and make an unintended death a possible or likely consequence.
4. The sentencing judge was entitled to regard the meat cleaver as adding aggravation. It was not an object picked up spontaneously. The applicant kept it in his bedroom for protection against burglars, contemplated using it against a person stealing from him, and was prepared to cause serious injury with it. The absence of intent to kill was nevertheless taken into account, so that the relevant features substantially balanced each other.
5. The judge had properly allowed credit for the late guilty plea. However, taking all aggravating and mitigating factors together, the 21-year term was too high. The proper substituted minimum term was 18 years, subject to the remand deduction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted the application, allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the 21-year minimum term and substituted 18 years, in each case less 181 days on remand.
• Liverpool Crown Court: Following guilty pleas to arson and murder, imposed life imprisonment for murder with a minimum term of 21 years less 181 days on remand.