Thomas v R

When fixing the minimum term for murder arising from prolonged domestic abuse, a court must not punish an offender for unconvicted violence against former partners or treat a caution as a previous conviction under section 143(2). It may, however, assess the seriousness of the fatal violence in the context of a proved series of domestic violent incidents or threats against the deceased over time.

That assessment accords with the relevant domestic-violence sentencing guideline and may reflect the victim’s vulnerability and physical suffering. The minimum-term exercise is not a mathematical calculation. An appellate court will not lightly interfere with a trial judge’s evaluative sentencing discretion where the whole gravity of the offending has been properly assessed.

The appellant was convicted by a majority in the Crown Court at Sheffield of the murder of his partner, Karen Hill. He received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17½ years, less time on remand.

The judge adopted a 15-year starting point under Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. He increased the term for the prolonged domestic violence towards the deceased, her vulnerability, her suffering, the appellant’s failure to obtain help, and his photographs of her while she was collapsed. He allowed mitigation for an intention to cause serious bodily harm rather than to kill.

On appeal, the appellant contended that the judge had impermissibly punished him for unconvicted violence against former partners and had imposed an excessive uplift.

1. Appeal dismissed. The minimum term was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. A sentencing court could not increase the minimum term as punishment for the appellant’s unconvicted violence against former partners. Nor could it rely on the caution concerning the deceased as a previous conviction under section 143(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

3. The judge was nevertheless entitled to assess the seriousness of the murder in the context of the cumulative effect of a proved series of violent incidents or threats against the deceased over a prolonged period. That approach was consistent with the common law and was specifically required by section 172(1), read with the relevant domestic-violence definitive guideline. It also accorded with the aggravating features of vulnerability and physical suffering in paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c) of Schedule 21.

4. Properly read, the sentencing remarks did not punish the appellant for assaults on the former partners. Their evidence permitted the judge to reject the appellant’s denial of responsibility. The aggravating feature was his cruel and violent conduct towards the deceased over a prolonged period.

5. The judge had assessed the overall gravity of the sustained violence, multiple injuries, vulnerability, suffering, degrading photographs, and failure to seek medical help. The court rejected the attempt to treat the 4½-year uplift as if it were a separate determinate sentence for earlier assaults. Minimum-term fixing for murder is not an arithmetical exercise, and the trial judge’s assessment attracted substantial appellate restraint.

Prolonged abusive domestic violence resulting in death requires condign punishment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the minimum term.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: the appellant was convicted by a majority of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17½ years, less 152 days on remand.