Ibe, R v

When fixing a murder minimum term under Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21, the court must assess whether a mental disorder actually lowered culpability and must balance aggravating and mitigating features proportionately. An appellate court will not ordinarily revisit a sentencing judge’s evaluative conclusion on reduced culpability where that judge considered the psychiatric evidence and heard the trial evidence.

Concealment of a body is an aggravating factor, but the uplift from the statutory starting point must fairly reflect its seriousness alongside mitigation, including the absence of planning or premeditation. A substantial uplift imposed solely for a short period of concealment may be excessive.

The appellant was convicted of murder at the Central Criminal Court and sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial judge fixed a minimum term of 22 years, less time spent on remand.

After strangling the deceased, the appellant concealed her body in her car for about five days and sent messages intended to suggest that she remained alive. He had a lasting mental disorder and disability following an earlier road accident. The jury rejected diminished responsibility.

On his appeal against sentence, the issues were whether his mental condition lowered culpability within paragraph 11(c) of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and whether the 22-year minimum term fairly reflected concealment of the body and the absence of premeditation.

1. Appeal allowed. The minimum term was reduced from 22 years to 17 years, in each case less time spent on remand. The term remained a minimum period only; release after it would be for the Parole Board.

2. The court upheld the trial judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s mental disorder and disability did not lower his culpability for the murder for the purposes of paragraph 11(c) of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The judge had considered the psychiatric evidence, heard both psychiatrists and heard the appellant. He was therefore in a substantially better position than the appellate court to decide whether the condition in fact reduced culpability. The court would not go behind that conclusion.

3. The applicable statutory starting point was 15 years. Concealment of the body engaged paragraph 10(g) of Schedule 21 and was a serious aggravating feature. It caused acute anguish to the deceased’s family while her fate remained unknown.

4. However, the judge’s seven-year uplift was disproportionate when concealment was balanced against the accepted absence of planning or premeditation. The appellant’s age, as a mature man in his late twenties, was not mitigating. A two-year uplift properly reflected the aggravating concealment and the mitigating lack of premeditation.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a 17-year minimum term.

• Central Criminal Court: Following conviction for murder on 22 December 2008, imposed life imprisonment with a 22-year minimum term, less time spent on remand.