Winnett, Re Review of Minimum Term

On a review of a notified minimum term under Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court must assess the seriousness of the offence by applying the principles in Schedule 21, while having regard to custody before sentence and the notified term. The minimum term concerns retribution and deterrence, including culpability and seriousness. It does not determine the prisoner’s dangerousness, which is for the Parole Board when considering release. The court cannot set a term longer than that notified by the Secretary of State. Any proper credit for qualifying time spent on remand must be deducted. Where aggravating factors outweigh mitigation, the notified term may be maintained despite admissions or an asserted intention to plead guilty where no plea was entered.

Raymond Charles Winnett applied under section 276 and Schedule 22 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for review of the 16-year minimum term notified by the Home Secretary in 1998 following his conviction for murder.

The trial judge had recommended 18 years, while the Lord Chief Justice had recommended 16 years. The applicant relied on admissions in police interview, an alleged intention to plead guilty, lack of premeditation and his mental state. The central issues were the appropriate starting point, the effect of aggravating and mitigating factors, the statutory maximum imposed by the notified term, and credit for time spent on remand.

1. Application allowed only to the extent of remand credit. The court specified a minimum term of 16 years, reduced by 6 months and 15 days spent in custody on remand. The early-release provisions under section 28(5) to (8) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 were ordered to apply when that specified term had been served.
2. Under Schedule 22 paragraph 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court had to consider the seriousness of the offence, custody before sentence and the Home Secretary’s notified period. Schedule 21 supplied the relevant general principles. Schedule 22 also prevented the court from fixing a term exceeding the notified 16 years.
3. The appropriate Schedule 21 starting point was 15 years under paragraph 6. The offence did not fall within the categories normally attracting a whole-life or 30-year starting point. However, the sustained and ferocious attack, the use of at least two knives and the victim’s extensive mental and physical suffering were significant aggravating factors.
4. Lack of premeditation and the applicant’s mental state provided some mitigation, but did not reduce the appropriate term below 16 years. Admissions in interview did not justify further reduction. The applicant had entered no plea, so he could not receive credit for a guilty plea which had not been entered.
5. The minimum term was concerned with the seriousness of the offence and the offender’s culpability for retributive and deterrent purposes. It was not an assessment of dangerousness. Dangerousness on eligibility for release remained a matter for the Parole Board.