Hopkins, Re Review of Minimum Term

On a review of a minimum term under Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court must assess the seriousness of the offence, relevant custody and remand credit, and the term notified by the Secretary of State. The court must have regard to the principles in Schedule 21 and relevant judicial recommendations, but must not set a term above the notified period. Schedule 21 provides a framework rather than a mechanistic formula. Dangerousness is a matter for the Parole Board, not part of the minimum-term assessment. An oral hearing is usually unnecessary where written representations adequately present the issues. The minimum term was fixed at 18 years, reduced by 441 days spent on remand.

The applicant had been convicted of murder in 1997 and received a mandatory life sentence. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 20 years, the Lord Chief Justice recommended 17–18 years, and the Secretary of State notified an 18-year minimum term in 1999. The applicant applied under section 276 and Schedule 22 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for review. He sought an oral hearing and relied on mitigating matters, including his age and conduct in custody. The central issues were the applicable statutory framework, the effect of Schedule 21, the notified maximum, and credit for 441 days on remand.

The application was determined without an oral hearing. Although Schedule 22 permits an oral hearing where appropriate, such hearings should be rare. Written representations sufficiently identified the issues and an oral hearing would not improve their presentation: see [2004] EWHC 2753.

1. Under Schedule 22 paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court was required to make an order applying the relevant early-release provisions. Its task was to determine the specified part, or minimum term. Under paragraph 3(1)(b), the term could not exceed the 18 years notified by the Secretary of State.
2. Under paragraph 4, the court had to consider the seriousness of the offence, relevant custody and remand credit, the notified period, the general principles in Schedule 21, and the recommendations of the trial judge and Lord Chief Justice. The minimum term concerned seriousness and culpability for retribution and deterrence. It did not involve assessing dangerousness, which fell to the Parole Board.
3. The offence fell within Schedule 21 paragraph 5. Its sadistic and sexual features meant that the 30-year starting point for an offence of particularly high seriousness was applicable. Schedule 21 was not to be applied mechanically. The applicant’s age of 19 was significant mitigation, but no proper assessment under Schedule 21 could reduce the term below 18 years.
4. Schedule 22 paragraph 10 was inapplicable. The application concerned review of an existing sentence and an already notified term, not the fixing of a mandatory life sentence after commencement of the Act. The guidance in Sullivan and Others was therefore unnecessary to the decision and was not applied: [2004] EWCA Crim 1762.
5. The applicant’s good behaviour and progress in custody did not constitute exceptional mitigation capable of altering the appropriate term. The minimum term was accordingly specified as 18 years less 441 days spent on remand. The early-release provisions in section 28(5)–(8) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 were ordered to apply once that term had been served.

The judgment records the applicant’s 1997 conviction, mandatory life sentence, judicial recommendations, and the Secretary of State’s 1999 notification. No appeal history is stated.