Sharp, R v

When fixing a murder minimum term, the court must take account of the factors in paragraph 10 of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, but must not apply them inflexibly. The assessment remains fact-specific and requires consideration of all the circumstances.

Planning a robbery may aggravate the assessment, but it carries materially less weight than planning or premeditation for murder. The minimum term must fairly reflect the manner in which death occurred, including the absence of an intention to kill and relevant personal mitigation.

The appellant was convicted of murder at Leeds Crown Court before Wilkie J and a jury on 26 June 2008. He and others had planned to rob a car trader at his home. During a violent confrontation, the deceased was subjected to a carotid sleeper hold and died.

The trial judge imposed a life sentence with a minimum term of 27 years. The appellant appealed, contending principally that the judge had wrongly treated planning of the robbery as significant planning or premeditation for murder. The issue was whether the minimum term was excessive when assessed under the statutory framework.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The life sentence remained, but the minimum term was reduced from 27 years to 25 years, less 153 days spent on remand.
2. The sentencing judge had not treated the statutory reference to significant planning or premeditation as planning or premeditation of murder. The judge had expressly accepted that the appellant had not intended to kill. The planning identified was planning of the robbery, including recruitment, equipment, information and targeting the deceased at home.
3. Following Height and Anderson [2008] EWCA Crim. 2500, the factors in paragraph 10 of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 had to be considered without inflexibility. Planning for a robbery could be taken into account, but it was significantly less serious than a plan to kill and was already partly reflected in the 30-year starting point.
4. The court reassessed the whole case. The attack was vicious, but death was not intended. Significant violence was inflicted after the deceased had become unconscious, and the claw hammer and screwdriver played little, if any, part. The appellant's age and previous convictions were also relevant. The 27-year term did not sufficiently reflect the absence of an intention to kill, the way death resulted, and the character of the violence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2009] EWCA Crim 542, allowed the appeal only as to the minimum term and substituted 25 years less time on remand.
• Leeds Crown Court: The appellant was convicted of murder before Wilkie J and a jury on 26 June 2008 and received a life sentence with a 27-year minimum term.