Crookshank, Re Setting the Applicant's Minimum Term

On an application by an existing prisoner under Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court may reduce an existing minimum term only where the statutory considerations justify doing so. The court must consider the seriousness of the offence, the principles in Schedule 21, the sentencing recommendations, and any relevant remand time. Exceptional progress in prison requires conduct that is exceptional or outstanding; good behaviour alone is insufficient, and any reduction is likely to be modest. The assessment remains offence-focused. Where the offending would have warranted a term exceeding the existing minimum under both the current statutory framework and the applicable earlier practice, no reduction is justified. Time spent in custody on remand may count towards the minimum term.

The applicant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court in 2001 of murdering Jill Hardy and received a life sentence. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 13 years, and the Lord Chief Justice made the same recommendation. In 2002 the Home Secretary notified the applicant that 13 years should be served before release on licence.

As an existing prisoner, the applicant applied under Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for the early-release provisions to apply after a shorter period. He relied, among other matters, on his progress in prison. The court had to determine whether the statutory sentencing principles, the earlier sentencing practice, the recommendations, and time spent on remand justified altering the notified term.

1. Application dismissed in substance. The court held that there was no justification for reducing the applicant’s 13-year minimum term, although 10 months and 16 days spent in custody on remand was to count towards that term.
2. Under Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court could order that the early-release provisions apply after a shorter period, but could not impose a longer period. It had to consider the seriousness of the murder, the general principles in Schedule 21, and the recommendations of the trial judge and Lord Chief Justice.
3. Applying Schedule 21, the court considered that the appropriate current starting point could have been 30 years under paragraph 5(2)(b), or at least 15 years under paragraph 6. The ferocity and extent of the attack, involving 92 stab or cut wounds and screwdriver injuries, constituted a powerful aggravating feature under paragraph 10. Possible provocation was the only potentially relevant mitigating feature under paragraph 11. There was no sufficient basis for treating the offence as lacking premeditation, since the applicant armed himself before the attack.
4. The court also considered the earlier practice described in Lord Bingham’s letter of 10 February 1997. The gratuitous violence was an aggravating feature which justified a sentence at or above the 14-year starting point for an average murder. The existing 13-year term was therefore already on the low side.
5. Following R v Cairns and Roberts [2006] EWCA Crim 2915, good prison behaviour did not amount to exceptional progress. The applicant’s conduct was creditable but neither exceptional nor outstanding, so it could not justify a reduction.