Hills, R. v

For soliciting to murder, the sentencing starting point after a contested trial remains five to six years’ imprisonment. Sentencing should not be inflated by comparison with the generally graver offences of attempted murder or conspiracy to murder.

Individual mitigation, including withdrawal from planned further steps, a prompt guilty plea and relevant mental disturbance, may justify a lower sentence. A separate assault occasioning actual bodily harm may properly attract a consecutive custodial term, but its length must reflect the offender’s mitigation.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of soliciting to murder and to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He had arranged meetings with undercover police officers, supplied information about the intended victim in Portugal, discussed payment and method, but did not attend a planned third meeting.

At the Central Criminal Court he received concurrent sentences of six years’ imprisonment for the solicitations and a consecutive 12-month sentence for the assault, making seven years. He appealed against sentence with leave of the Single Judge. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had adopted an excessive starting point and whether the consecutive assault sentence was too long.

1. The appeal was allowed. Concurrent sentences of four and a half years’ imprisonment were substituted for the two counts of soliciting to murder. The consecutive sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was reduced from 12 months to six months. The total sentence was therefore five years’ imprisonment, less 231 days spent in custody before sentence.

2. The court held that the leading guidance remained AG Ref (No 43 of 1996), [1997] 1 Cr.App.R(S) 378: the starting point for soliciting to murder after a contested trial is five to six years. Sentencing courts must guard against allowing comparison with generally more serious cases of attempted murder and conspiracy to murder to increase the appropriate starting point for solicitation.

3. The appellant had carefully considered the proposed killing and deterrence was relevant. However, he had not proceeded with the planned third meeting. That was significant mitigation. In the circumstances, the original sentencing judge had selected a starting point that was a degree too high, apparently influenced by more serious categories of offending.

4. The assault was a distinct offence and a consecutive custodial term was justified. The victim was entitled to the court’s protection as a public-sector worker. Nevertheless, the appellant’s mental disturbance at the time and his prompt guilty plea meant that six months, rather than 12 months, was sufficient.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a total sentence of five years’ imprisonment.
• Central Criminal Court: On 6 August 2007, imposed concurrent six-year sentences for two counts of soliciting to murder and a consecutive 12-month sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
• Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court: On 23 March 2007, accepted the appellant’s guilty plea to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and committed him to the Crown Court for sentence.