Hardy, R. v

[2010] EWHC 1064 (QB)

Case details

Case citations
[2010] EWHC 1064 (QB)
Court
High Court (Queen's Bench Division)
Judgment date
14 May 2010
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Criminal Sentencing Whole life orders
Keywords
murder whole life order life imprisonment retribution and deterrence sadistic sexual conduct Schedule 22 Parole Board minimum term
Outcome
judgment for the crown: whole life order made
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

In determining whether a prisoner convicted of murder should ever be released on licence, the court must decide what sentence is necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence. The risk posed by the prisoner on release is a matter for the Parole Board, not the sentencing court. A whole life order is appropriate in exceptionally grave cases, including murders of two or more persons involving sexual or sadistic conduct, where a finite term would not suffice. Early responsibility, mental disorder, guilty pleas and remorse may carry little weight where the crimes are of the utmost gravity.

Factual background

Anthony Hardy pleaded guilty to murdering three women and was sentenced to life imprisonment for each murder. The sentencing judge had initially concluded that no minimum term could properly be set. Following the commencement of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Home Secretary referred the case to the High Court under paragraph 6 for an order under sections 269(2) or 269(4). The issue was whether Hardy should never be released on licence or whether release should be considered after a specified minimum period.

Held

  1. The court made a whole life order. A lengthy finite term would not suffice.
  2. Under sections 269(2) and 269(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the relevant question was what was necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence. The danger Hardy might pose on release was for the Parole Board to assess.
  3. Cases normally falling within the starting point for a whole life order include the murder of two or more persons where each murder involves sexual or sadistic conduct. Hardy’s case fell plainly within that category and was of the utmost gravity.
  4. The court treated the murders of the two later victims as intentional killings committed during sadistic sexual activity. The dismemberment and post-mortem indignities aggravated the seriousness of the offences.
  5. Hardy’s early acceptance of responsibility, personality disorder at the time, guilty pleas and expressed remorse carried little weight against the gravity of the crimes. The order was therefore that he should never be released from prison.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.