Kular, Re Review of Minimum Term

When reviewing a minimum term under Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court must assess the seriousness and culpability of the offence, have regard to the specified statutory matters and recommendations, and respect the statutory ceiling imposed by the term notified by the Home Secretary. The minimum term concerns punishment and deterrence, not the offender’s dangerousness, which is for the Parole Board. Schedule 21 principles may guide the assessment even where they principally apply to later life sentences. A starting point may be increased by aggravating factors and reduced by mitigation, but exceptional prison progress is required to justify departure from an otherwise appropriate term. Time spent on remand must be credited.

The applicant had been convicted of murdering his wife in India in January 1987 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 22 years, and the Lord Chief Justice recommended 18 years. In 2002 the Home Secretary notified the applicant that the minimum term was 18 years.

The applicant applied under section 276 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for review of the minimum term. The central issues were the appropriate assessment of seriousness, the effect of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the statutory 18-year limit, and credit for 23 months and 23 days spent on remand.

1. The application was determined without an oral hearing. Under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court had to have regard to the seriousness of the offence, time spent in custody before sentence, and the period notified by the Home Secretary. Under paragraph 4(2), seriousness required regard to the general principles in Schedule 21 and to the trial judge’s and Lord Chief Justice’s recommendations.
2. The minimum term was concerned with punishment and deterrence, reflecting seriousness and culpability. It was not an assessment of dangerousness. Any decision on release after the minimum term would be for the Parole Board.
3. Applying Schedule 21 by analogy, the murder was within paragraph 5 because its seriousness was particularly high. The appropriate starting point was 30 years. The significant planning and premeditation aggravated the offence, while no mitigation of sufficient weight was established.
4. Paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 22 prevented the court from fixing a term greater than the 18 years notified by the Home Secretary. The court also had regard to the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation of 18 years. There was no justification for reducing that term further. Other decisions under the transitional arrangements were fact-specific and did not assist.
5. Good behaviour and progress in custody did not amount to exceptional circumstances warranting reduction. The minimum term was therefore fixed at 18 years less 23 months and 23 days spent on remand. The early release provisions in section 28(5) to (8) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 were directed to apply after that specified term had been served.