Wright, R v

Sentencing starting points for murder must not be applied mechanically. The court must assess the detailed circumstances of the individual case and make the adjustments required for a just minimum term.

A murder for gain may vary materially in seriousness. Extreme violence and the killing of a close family member may aggravate the offence, while a guilty plea and a prompt confession retain mitigating weight even where a disputed sentencing issue requires a Newton hearing and reduces the available plea credit.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to murdering his mother. Following a Newton hearing, the sentencing judge found that he killed her for gain in order to obtain money for cocaine. The judge imposed the mandatory life sentence and set a minimum term of 28 years, less 538 days spent on remand.

The applicant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal his sentence. He contended that the minimum term was manifestly excessive, particularly given his guilty plea and his voluntary report to the police.

1. The court extended time, granted leave and allowed the appeal against sentence. The mandatory sentence of life imprisonment remained. The minimum term was reduced from 28 years to 23 years, less 538 days spent in custody before sentence.
2. The judge was entitled to find beyond reasonable doubt that this was a murder for gain. The evidence supported the conclusion that the applicant wanted further cocaine, sought to use his mother’s card to obtain money, met her resistance with lethal violence, and then used the card to buy cocaine. A 30-year starting point under paragraph 5(2)(c) of Schedule 21 was therefore justified.
3. Starting points must not be used mechanically. The sentencing court must consider all the detailed circumstances and make the adjustments necessary to achieve justice in the particular case.
4. The murder was exceptionally brutal and the killing of the applicant’s mother aggravated its seriousness because of the particular anguish caused to the remaining family. However, murders for gain differ in gravity. This killing, though dreadful, was not to be equated with a murder committed during an armed robbery or necessarily with one committed during a brutal burglary.
5. The Newton hearing properly reduced the credit otherwise available for the guilty plea. Nevertheless, the applicant had pleaded guilty and had voluntarily gone to the police before the investigation began. Insufficient weight had been given to those features. The resulting 28-year minimum term was somewhat too high.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2009] EWCA Crim 976, time was extended, leave was granted, and the minimum term was reduced to 23 years less time spent on remand.
• Central Criminal Court — On 7 September 2007, following a Newton hearing, the applicant received the mandatory life sentence with a 28-year minimum term, less 538 days on remand.