Randall, R v

A whole life order under Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21 is reserved for offending whose seriousness is exceptionally high. The sentencing exercise is flexible and must consider the case as a whole, including associated offending and mitigation. A sentencer should make such an order only where the need is clear-cut and a very lengthy finite minimum term would be insufficient.

Premeditation and an intention to kill are serious aggravating features, but neither is determinative of the appropriate starting-point category. A sexual element in a murder requires safe evidence that sexual activity or motivation formed part of the killing itself.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Northampton to murder, causing grievous bodily harm and four sexual offences against his seven-week-old daughter. He admitted prolonged violent and sexual abuse. The trial judge imposed life imprisonment for murder and made a whole life order under Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21. The remaining sentences included life imprisonment with a three-year minimum term for grievous bodily harm and concurrent four-year terms for the sexual offences.

On appeal against sentence, the principal issue was whether the seriousness of the murder and associated offences was exceptionally high, so as to justify a whole life order, or particularly high, so as to require a 30-year minimum term.

1. The court allowed the appeal against the whole life order and substituted a 30-year minimum term for the murder. The other sentences remained unaffected.

2. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21, starting points are guides rather than rigid categories. Applying R v Neil Jones and Others [2006] 2 Cr App R(S) 21, a whole life order is appropriate only where the overall seriousness is exceptionally high and the need for imprisonment for life is clear. If the sentencer is in doubt, that may indicate that a lengthy finite minimum term is the proper disposal.

3. The judge had been wrong to find a sexual element in the murder merely because earlier sexual abuse was inextricably bound up with the violence. The sexual offending had occurred about a month before the death. There was no safe evidence of sexual activity or sexual motivation on the day of the killing.

4. The applicant's repeated fantasies about his daughter's death amounted to premeditation. Although the judge had been misinformed as to part of the interview evidence, the whole history, interviews and psychiatric report made it safe to find an intention to kill. Those findings did not themselves determine whether the case fell within the whole life category.

5. The prolonged cruelty, breach of trust, vulnerability and age of the child, associated violent and sexual offending, suffering inflicted and premeditation were grave aggravating features. The guilty pleas and absence of previous convictions provided some mitigation. However, uncertainty as to what led to the killing, the absence of sexual motivation and the need for a clear-cut conclusion meant that the exceptionally high threshold was not met. The seriousness was instead particularly high, attracting the 30-year starting point.

The Parole Board would determine, at the end of the minimum term, whether release could safely be considered.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal against sentence was granted. The court allowed the appeal in relation to the murder sentence, replacing the whole life order with a 30-year minimum term.
• Crown Court at Northampton: On 13 March 2007, following guilty pleas, the judge imposed life imprisonment for murder with a whole life order. Life imprisonment with a three-year minimum term was imposed for grievous bodily harm, and concurrent four-year terms were imposed for the sexual offences.