Samuel, R. v

[2007] EWCA Crim 1954

Case details

Case citations
[2007] EWCA Crim 1954
Court
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Judgment date
16 July 2007
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Criminal Sentencing Murder sentencing
Keywords
minimum term life imprisonment murder sentence appeal aggravating factors mitigating factors mental health absence of premeditation guilty plea Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcome
appeal allowed in part (minimum term reduced from 35 years to 30 years)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

When fixing a minimum term for murder, the sentencing court must give proper weight to all material aggravating and mitigating features. A defendant’s mental-health history may be significant mitigation even though it does not satisfy the criteria for diminished responsibility. The absence of premeditation is also material. Where the applicable statutory starting point is 30 years and the aggravating and mitigating factors balance, a higher minimum term is not justified.

Factual background

The appellant pleaded guilty at Mold Crown Court to the murders of his five-year-old daughter and three-year-old son. He received concurrent life sentences with a minimum term of 35 years, less 120 days spent on remand.

He appealed the length of the minimum term. He accepted that the applicable starting point was 30 years under paragraph 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. His grounds relied on the absence of premeditation, his guilty pleas and a history of bipolar affective disorder which did not amount to diminished responsibility.

Held

  1. Appeal allowed in part. The minimum term of 35 years was excessive. It was reduced to 30 years for each concurrent life sentence, with time on remand to count towards the terms.

  2. The court accepted that the applicable starting point was 30 years under paragraph 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The sentencing judge had correctly identified two serious aggravating features: the children were exceptionally vulnerable and defenceless because of their ages, and the appellant had abused the fundamental trust placed in a father by his children.

  3. However, the appellant’s mental-health history was an important mitigating factor, although it did not meet the criteria for diminished responsibility. The absence of premeditation was also important. The court held that those mitigating matters had not been given sufficient weight.

  4. On the facts, the aggravating and mitigating factors balanced each other. The statutory starting point should therefore be retained, rather than increased to 35 years.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence to the limited extent of reducing the minimum term to 30 years: [2007] EWCA Crim 1954.
  • Crown Court at Mold: Following guilty pleas to two murders, imposed concurrent life sentences with a minimum term of 35 years, less 120 days spent on remand.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
appeal allowed in part (minimum term reduced from 35 years to 30 years)

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.