Khan, R. v

For murders sentenced under the transitional Practice Statement, the stated starting points and examples of aggravating features are not exhaustive. A closely connected associated offence may justify a higher murder starting point where that is necessary to reflect the overall seriousness and culpability of the conduct.

Premeditation must be established to the criminal standard before it increases the minimum term. A sentence for wounding with intent must reflect that offence, rather than attempted murder, and give appropriate credit for a guilty plea.

The appellant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of murdering his wife and had pleaded guilty to wounding her brother with intent. He received life imprisonment with an 18-year minimum term for murder and a concurrent 14-year sentence for wounding.

The sentencing judge treated the killing as premeditated and increased the murder minimum term to reflect both that feature and the associated shooting. The appellant appealed against both sentences, contending that premeditation had not been proved, that the wounding could not aggravate the murder sentence, and that insufficient credit had been given for his plea.

1. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The court quashed the 18-year minimum term for murder and substituted 15 years. It also quashed the concurrent 14-year sentence for wounding with intent and substituted 10 years’ imprisonment, concurrent with the life sentence.
2. The murder fell within the transitional sentencing regime under the Practice Statement applicable to offences committed after 31 May 2002 and before 18 December 2003. A 12-year starting point was appropriate unless the case justified the higher starting point for exceptionally high culpability.
3. The evidence did not prove premeditation of the murder to the criminal standard. The sentencing judge’s six-year uplift could therefore not be sustained on that basis.
4. However, the shooting and the murder were very closely connected. They shared the same motive and formed part of the overall criminality. The Practice Statement and the current regime did not provide exhaustive lists of relevant factors. The associated wounding could therefore justify, by analogy with multiple killings, selection of the higher starting point to reflect the appellant’s very high culpability. A 15-year minimum term was appropriate.
5. For the wounding, the proper starting point was 12 years. As the offence was wounding with intent rather than attempted murder, and the guilty plea merited a greater reduction than that allowed below, the appropriate sentence was 10 years. The 901 days spent on remand continued to count towards sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—Allowed the appeal against sentence; substituted a 15-year minimum term for murder and a concurrent 10-year sentence for wounding in [2006] EWCA Crim 954.
• Central Criminal Court—The appellant was convicted of murder on 7 November 2005. On 8 November 2005, he received life imprisonment with an 18-year minimum term and a concurrent 14-year sentence for wounding with intent.