Timlinl, R. v

On a review of a mandatory life sentence, Criminal Justice Act 2003 Schedule 22 prevents the court from requiring service of a period greater than the notified minimum term. Whether time spent in custody before sentence counts towards that term depends on the applicable historic tariff practice. Where official correspondence has notified the prisoner that the notified term runs from the date of remand, fairness and the statutory limit prevent the reviewing judge from excluding that period.

The appellant received a life sentence in 1987 for offences including murder, attempted murder and conspiracies to murder and wound. The Lord Chief Justice and trial judge recommended a 30-year minimum term. The Secretary of State later reduced the notified tariff to 25 years.

Following the statutory review procedure, Wilkie J fixed a 25-year minimum term but directed that time spent on remand should not count. The appellant appealed that direction. The central issue was whether excluding the remand period would unlawfully increase the notified minimum term.

1. Appeal allowed. The reviewing judge was not entitled to direct that the whole period spent on remand should not count towards the appellant’s 25-year minimum term.

2. Under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the period specified by the High Court for an existing mandatory life prisoner must not exceed the notified minimum term. A direction which excludes custody that historically counted towards the tariff increases that term and is therefore impermissible.

3. The evidence showed that, in 1987, the general Home Office practice was to take remand time into account and to run the tariff from the remand date. The departmental guidance suggested an exception for a person who, while remanded on the life-sentence matter, was serving another sentence. That guidance was obscure.

4. More importantly, NOMS had notified the appellant that his release date was 16 October 2011. This treated the 25-year period as running from 16 October 1986, the date of remand, without deducting the period during which he was a serving prisoner. In those particular circumstances, the statutory restriction and fairness required effect to be given to that notification.

5. The court also observed that the Ministry of Justice should provide reviewing judges with a clear record of the historic tariff practice and all relevant correspondence in such cases.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—in [2007] EWCA Crim 3217, allowed the appeal against the exclusion of remand time from the minimum term.
• High Court—Wilkie J, on 21 July 2007, set a 25-year minimum term on review but directed that time on remand should not count.