Hodson, R. v

In fixing a minimum term for murder, the sentencing court may begin with the applicable statutory starting point and increase it for aggravating features, provided it avoids double counting. A killing during a targeted home intrusion for gain is seriously aggravated where the offender exploits a known vulnerable victim, inflicts prolonged and extreme violence, causes physical suffering, and starts fires to destroy evidence.

Absence of a specific intent to kill will afford little mitigation where the offender should have appreciated that death was a virtual certainty. The Court of Appeal will not interfere where the judge has correctly directed himself, carefully evaluated the relevant factors, and the minimum term is not manifestly excessive.

The applicant was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court of murdering a 64-year-old man with learning difficulties. The applicant had previously stolen from and assaulted the deceased, who feared his return. He later entered the deceased's home, inflicted a sustained and exceptionally severe assault, and set separate fires within the property.

The Recorder set a minimum term of 32 years' imprisonment, using a 30-year starting point for murder committed for gain in the course of a dwelling-house robbery or burglary. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence after the single judge refused leave. He contended that the minimum term should have been lower because the murder was not premeditated and he lacked an intention to kill.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The 32-year minimum term was not manifestly excessive.
2. The Recorder correctly adopted a 30-year starting point. He was entitled to increase it after identifying substantial additional aggravation while guarding against overlap between the starting point and those features.
3. The deceased's known vulnerability, the applicant's deliberate targeting of his home, the prolonged violence, the neck wounds inflicted in order to locate valuables, and the separate fires set to destroy evidence all materially aggravated the offence.
4. The Recorder was entitled to conclude that there was little mitigation even if the applicant did not specifically intend to kill. The scale of the beating and stamping meant that he either intended death or should have appreciated that death was a virtual certainty.
5. The violence was not spontaneous. The Recorder had tried the case, had directed himself correctly, and had carefully assessed intent, the absence of premeditation, mitigation, and aggravating features. There was no error in his approach.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused in [2009] EWCA Crim 2233.
• Liverpool Crown Court: The applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 32-year minimum term.
• Single judge: Leave to appeal against sentence was refused.