Matthews, R. v

Under the transitional sentencing provisions in Criminal Justice Act 2003, a minimum term may properly be increased substantially above the applicable starting point where the offending is exceptionally grave. A pre-planned attack for gain involving prolonged, extreme and sadistic violence justified a 24-year minimum term, notwithstanding the absence of an intention to kill and personal mitigation.

An appellate court will not intervene where the resulting minimum term is severe but is not manifestly excessive.

Three defendants were convicted at Chester Crown Court of murder and two conspiracies to cause grievous bodily harm arising from an attack at a cannabis farm. Wilson and Raven were convicted on 19 August 2004. Matthews was convicted at a retrial on 15 December 2004 after the first jury had failed to reach verdicts in his case.

Each received life imprisonment with a 24-year minimum term and concurrent 14-year sentences for the conspiracies. They challenged the minimum terms as excessive, relying on the absence of an intention to kill, their respective roles, age and mitigation.

1. The applications were refused. The 24-year minimum terms were severe but were not manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judges had correctly applied the transitional provisions in Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The accepted starting point was 16 years. The nature of the offences plainly justified a substantial uplift.

3. The attack was pre-planned, committed for gain, prolonged and exceptionally violent. The deceased and another victim were subjected to sustained torture, humiliation and grave injury. Those features made the offending exceptionally grave.

4. Poole J was entitled to make no distinction between Wilson and Raven. David Clarke J had also considered whether Matthews should receive a different minimum term and was entitled to conclude that Matthews and Raven acted as a team. The Court found no basis to differ from either assessment.

5. The absence of an intention to kill, the applicants’ ages, good character or effective good character in two cases, and the asserted differences in role did not make the minimum terms excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The applications challenging the 24-year minimum terms were refused in [2006] EWCA Crim 2014.

• Chester Crown Court: Wilson and Raven were convicted on 19 August 2004 and each received life imprisonment with a 24-year minimum term. Matthews was convicted following a retrial on 15 December 2004 and received the same minimum term. The lower-court judgments’ citations were not stated in the judgment.