Morley, R. v

Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21 provides a non-exhaustive framework for fixing the minimum term for murder. The court must assess whether the murder is of a particularly high level of seriousness on all the circumstances, rather than mechanically applying the listed features.

Extreme ferocity, deliberation and post-death desecration involving cannibalism may together justify the 30-year starting point, even though cannibalism is not expressly listed in Schedule 21. A sentencing judge’s imperfect route to that conclusion does not require alteration of the minimum term where the appellate court reaches the same conclusion on the correct overall assessment.

The appellant was convicted by a jury at Leeds Crown Court of murder and, on 20 October 2008, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 30-year minimum term under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. He appealed against the minimum term.

The killing followed sexual activity between the appellant and the deceased. The judge rejected the appellant’s account of betrayal, and treated the murder as exceptionally ferocious and deliberate. The appellant also desecrated the body after death, including by removing, cooking and sampling flesh.

The appeal concerned whether the judge had been entitled to adopt the 30-year starting point in Schedule 21, rather than a lower starting point increased for aggravating features.

1. Appeal dismissed. The 30-year starting point and resulting minimum term were appropriate.

2. The court accepted that the facts could not directly be described as falling within the categories in paragraphs 5(2)(e) and (g) of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Taken alone, the judge’s treatment of the sexual-orientation element was therefore open to criticism.

3. That did not resolve the appeal. The appellate question was whether the murder was, in all the circumstances, one of a particularly high level of seriousness. The sexual background remained significant, but it was not treated as determinative. The court also relied on the extreme ferocity of the attack, the appellant’s interval to calm himself before arming himself with a knife, and the deliberate cutting of the deceased’s throat followed by repeated stabbing.

4. Post-death desecration involving cannibalism was not expressly identified in Schedule 21. Nevertheless, it was a profoundly significant feature of seriousness and, in this case, supported classification at the particularly high level. The statutory lists in paragraphs 4 and 5, and the aggravating and mitigating features in paragraphs 10 and 11, were neither conclusive nor exclusive.

5. The court reached the same conclusion as the sentencing judge by a different route. The correct starting point was 30 years, so no alteration of the minimum term was warranted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant’s sentence appeal and upheld the 30-year minimum term.

• Leeds Crown Court: on 20 October 2008, following conviction by a jury of murder, imposed life imprisonment with a 30-year minimum term under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.