Steele, Re Review of Minimum Term

In reviewing a minimum term for a mandatory life sentence under Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court must assess the seriousness of the offence and culpability, have regard to the specified statutory factors, and apply the general principles in Schedule 21. The assessment is not mechanistic. The minimum term concerns retribution and deterrence, not the prisoner’s future dangerousness, which is for the Parole Board. The court cannot set a term exceeding that notified by the Secretary of State. Time spent on remand must be credited. Aggravating features may justify a term above the applicable Schedule 21 starting point, but the statutory cap remains controlling.

The applicant had been convicted of murdering a 69-year-old householder during a burglary and received a mandatory life sentence. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 15 years, and the Lord Chief Justice recommended 14–15 years. The Secretary of State notified a 15-year minimum term.

The applicant sought review under section 276 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The issues were the appropriate minimum term, the relevance of the applicant’s conduct in custody and alleged dangerousness, the effect of the statutory cap, and credit for 10 months and 23 days spent on remand.

1. The application was allowed only to the extent required to give credit for the period spent on remand. The minimum term was fixed at 15 years less 10 months and 23 days. The early-release provisions in section 28(5)–(8) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 were ordered to apply when that specified term had been served.

2. Under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court had to consider the seriousness of the offence or associated offences, qualifying time in custody before sentence, and the notified minimum term. Under paragraph 4(2), it also had to have regard to the general principles in Schedule 21 and the recommendations of the trial judge and Lord Chief Justice.

3. The minimum term measures the seriousness of the offending and degree of culpability for retribution and deterrence. It is not an assessment of dangerousness. Dangerousness and release on licence are matters for the Parole Board after the minimum term has been served.

4. The Schedule 21 framework required selection of an appropriate starting point, followed by consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors not already reflected in that starting point. The exercise was evaluative rather than mechanistic. The murder of a particularly vulnerable elderly householder during a burglary, committed to silence him, and the cruelty of the killing were significant aggravating features. The appropriate term on Schedule 21 principles would have been materially above 15 years and closer to 20 years.

5. Paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 22 prevented the court from setting a term greater than the 15 years notified by the Secretary of State. The applicant’s progress in custody was not sufficiently exceptional to justify a reduction. The court was, however, required to deduct 10 months and 23 days spent on remand.

not stated in the judgment.