Williams, Re

When fixing a minimum term under paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court must calculate the period likely to have been notified under the pre-December 2003 practice and the period under the 2003 Act, then impose the lower period. Strong mitigation may justify a substantial reduction from the applicable starting point. Prison progress warrants a further reduction only where it is exceptional and supported by a favourable risk assessment and adequate evidence. Good behaviour and commendable progress alone are insufficient.

The defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. As trial judge, Silber J had initially recommended a nine-year minimum term. On a later application under paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court reconsidered the effect of fresh evidence concerning violence and aggression in the relationship, the applicable sentencing regimes, mitigation, and the defendant’s progress in custody.

The court also considered the unsuccessful conviction appeal in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), which had rejected provocation but accepted that the relationship evidence might still have mitigating significance.

1. Minimum-term calculation. The court was required to identify both the period likely to have been notified under the practice in force before December 2003 and the period that would result from applying the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The lower of those periods had to be imposed.
2. Pre-2003 calculation. The ordinary starting point under the relevant practice was 14 years. The court treated the stabbing as spontaneous and impulsive, accepted that the defendant intended grievous bodily harm rather than death, and regarded the intended harm as at the lowest end of that spectrum. Remorse was also material. These were unusually powerful mitigating factors and justified a reduction to nine years. Earlier aggression by the deceased was accepted only as a weak mitigating factor because it was remote and had no causative effect on the stabbing.
3. Exceptional progress. A further reduction for progress in custody required progress that was exceptional or outstanding, together with a favourable risk assessment. Good behaviour or commendable progress was insufficient. The evidence did not satisfy those requirements, so no further reduction was available.
4. 2003 Act calculation and order. Applying the 2003 Act produced a period of approximately 10 to 11 years, which exceeded the nine-year period under the former practice. The court therefore fixed the minimum term at nine years from 22 October 2002, after which the defendant could be considered for parole.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The defendant’s conviction appeal was unsuccessful. The court rejected provocation even in light of the fresh relationship evidence, while accepting that the evidence could still bear on mitigation.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The minimum term was fixed at nine years from the date of sentence.