Clarke, R v

A minimum term for murder may properly begin at 30 years under Schedule 21 where the sentencing judge is entitled to find that the killing was sadistic. Youth remains a mitigating consideration, but it does not require a greater reduction where the offence is exceptionally grave and the offender’s background does not materially reduce culpability.

A disparity between co-offenders’ minimum terms is justified where their culpability and mitigation differ. Relevant differences may include whether sadism is proved and whether an offender showed immediate remorse or disclosed involvement.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Norwich of the murder of a 17-year-old victim. The victim was lured to an isolated place, abducted, tied to a tree, subjected to extreme violence and set alight. The applicant received life imprisonment with a 27-year minimum term.

He made a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. He contended that insufficient allowance had been made for his youth, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and personal background. He also alleged an unjustified disparity between his term and the 22-year and 17-year terms imposed on his co-offenders.

The central issues were whether the judge was entitled to treat the murder as sadistic for Schedule 21 purposes, and whether the resulting minimum term was excessive or disproportionate by comparison with the co-offenders.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that this was a sadistic killing by the applicant. The evidence supported the conclusion that he intensely hated the victim, participated in the planned abduction and killing, helped obtain petrol, tied the victim to a tree, and later concealed the body and boasted about the murder.

2. The Court would not interfere with the judge’s finding that the applicant’s conduct was sadistic. The judge had seen him give evidence throughout a long trial. In any event, the available evidence gave no basis to disagree with that finding. A sadistic killing attracted the 30-year starting point under Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

3. The judge had made proper allowance for youth. He expressly considered it and reduced the 30-year starting point to a 27-year minimum term. The applicant’s ADHD, low IQ and other personal difficulties did not materially affect the required assessment. He was not suffering from serious mental illness or a learning impairment, and no further reduction was appropriate.

4. There was no improper disparity with Stewart’s 22-year minimum term. Stewart was deeply involved, but the judge was not sure that his participation was sadistic. Stewart had also been affected by what occurred and had made admissions to his mother soon afterwards. Those differences entitled the judge to assess the applicant’s criminality as greater. Chandler’s lesser term reflected her substantially less serious role.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against a 27-year minimum term for murder refused.
• Crown Court at Norwich: the applicant was convicted of murder on 29 May 2009 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 27-year minimum term, subject to credit for time on remand.