Machin, R v

When fixing a minimum term for murder under Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court must assess the seriousness of the offence by weighing aggravating and mitigating features, the statutory framework and the trial judge’s recommendation. For offences committed before the relevant change in practice, the previous tariff guidance may provide the best guide, subject to the statutory requirements. Use of a knife, luring the victim, premeditation and killing for gain may justify a term above the 14-year starting point for an average, unexceptional murder. Absence of an intention to kill remains a mitigating feature. Time spent on remand must be deducted from the minimum term.

The defendant was convicted of murder at Manchester Crown Court on 20 October 2003 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 16 years. Because the relevant statutory provisions were coming into force, the Secretary of State had not fixed a minimum term, and the matter came before the High Court under Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The defendant sought a shorter term. The central issues were the proper assessment of aggravating and mitigating features, the relevance of the former tariff guidance, and the deduction for time spent on remand.

1. The court set the minimum term at 16 years, with a deduction of 7 months and 8 days for the defendant’s time in custody on remand.
2. In assessing seriousness, the court had regard to section 269(5) and Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the trial judge’s recommendation and the former practice under which the Secretary of State fixed tariffs. Since the murder was committed before the relevant change in practice, Lord Bingham CJ’s letter of 10 February 1997 was the best guide, provided the statutory framework was also applied.
3. The former guidance treated 14 years as the starting point for an average, unexceptional murder. The absence of an intention to kill was mitigating. The use of a dangerous weapon, luring the victim by telephone, premeditation and killing for gain were aggravating features capable of justifying a term above that starting point.
4. The defendant’s submissions did not establish any basis for rejecting the trial judge’s findings that the killing was premeditated and motivated by the desire to take over the victim’s drug-dealing business. The timing of the telephone calls was consistent with planning.
5. The court had regard to Sullivan 2004 EWCA Crim.1762, which explained the significance of the mitigating factors in the former 14-year guidance. In the circumstances, the trial judge’s recommendation of 16 years was appropriate and no greater than the term likely to have been fixed under the former practice.

This was a first-instance determination under Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, following the defendant’s conviction and the trial judge’s recommendation of a 16-year minimum term.