Patterson, R v

For an offender under 18 convicted of murder after trial, Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21 provides a 12-year starting point for the minimum term. In assessing seriousness, the court must give proper weight to all applicable mitigation. An intention to cause really serious harm rather than death is not of merely minimal weight solely because death is a possible consequence of a knife-stabbing. The reduced weight illustrated by premeditated conduct causing a likely risk of death does not apply where there was no such premeditation. Youth, genuine early remorse and strong positive good character may also materially mitigate. Carrying a knife in a public place without lawful excuse remains a very serious aggravating feature, but the minimum term must reflect a balanced assessment of all relevant factors.

The appellant, aged 16 years and nine months, was convicted of murdering Timothy Smith at Nottingham Crown Court on 4 December 2007, following a retrial after the first jury had been unable to agree.

During a confrontation at a city-centre bus stop, the appellant stabbed the deceased once in the chest with a kitchen knife. He surrendered to the police the following day, admitted the stabbing and identified the knife’s location. He had offered to plead guilty to manslaughter.

The trial judge imposed detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure and fixed a 14-year minimum term, less 224 days spent on remand. The appeal concerned whether that minimum term properly reflected the statutory starting point, the mitigating features and the aggravation arising from carrying a knife in public.

1. Appeal allowed. The 14-year minimum term was excessive. The appropriate minimum term was 12 years, less 224 days spent on remand.

2. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21, the correct starting point for this offender, who was under 18 when he committed murder and had been tried, was 12 years.

3. The judge had given insufficient weight to the mitigating circumstance that the appellant intended really serious bodily harm rather than death. The fact that death is a possible or likely consequence of using a knife did not itself justify treating that mitigation as carrying only minimal weight. The example in Peters [2005] 2 Cr App R(S) 101 concerned premeditated conduct, illustrated by abduction and torture, and did not govern this case.

4. There was no premeditation in the statutory sense. The court agreed that neither a qualifying measure of self-defence nor the relevant qualification to the offence was available. However, the appellant’s age, his prompt admission and assistance in locating the knife, his remorse, his exceptional positive good character and his excellent custodial record were all material mitigation.

5. Carrying a knife without lawful excuse in a public place was the sole aggravating feature and a very serious one. Public concern about knife-carrying was justified and consistent with preventing offending by children and young persons. Nevertheless, balancing that aggravation against the substantial mitigation required retention of the 12-year starting point.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the sentence appeal and substituted a 12-year minimum term, less 224 days on remand: [2008] EWCA Crim 1018.

• Crown Court at Nottingham — following a retrial, convicted the appellant of murder and imposed detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure with a 14-year minimum term, less 224 days on remand. The first trial jury had been unable to agree.