Sharif, R v

On a review of a minimum term under paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court must first assess the matters specified in paragraph 4 of Schedule 22, including the seriousness of the offending under Schedule 21, before considering any reduction for exceptional progress in custody. The court cannot increase the notified term on such an application. Continuing denial of guilt does not automatically prevent exceptional progress, but it may properly cause the court to approach claimed progress with caution where denial bears on identified risks, insight and rehabilitation. Seriousness, planning, premeditation and victim vulnerability may justify a starting point substantially above the notified term, subject to the statutory limit on the court’s power.

The applicant had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murders of two people committed when he was 19. The Secretary of State notified a minimum term of 20 years, reduced by 352 days spent on remand. The applicant applied under paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for a reduction based on exceptional progress in custody.

The prosecution accepted certain mitigating features, including the applicant’s age and an intention to cause serious bodily harm rather than to kill. The central issues were the proper assessment of the seriousness of the offending and whether the applicant’s progress was exceptional despite his continuing denial of guilt and identified risk factors.

1. The application was governed by paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Before considering exceptional progress, the court had to have regard to paragraph 4 of Schedule 22, including the seriousness of the offences, the principles in Schedule 21, the recommendations of the trial judge and Lord Chief Justice, and the notified term. The court had no power to increase the minimum term on the application.

2. Under paragraph 5 of Schedule 21, the murders of two people would, on the facts, attract a starting point of 30 years. Significant planning and premeditation were aggravating factors under paragraph 10(a). The age and vulnerability of the victims, particularly their vulnerability to a night-time fire and their limited ability to escape, engaged paragraph 10(b).

3. The accepted mitigating factors were that the intention was to cause serious bodily harm rather than to kill, within paragraph 11(a), and that the applicant was aged 19, within paragraph 11(b). After balancing the aggravating and mitigating features, the appropriate minimum term would have been in the order of 30 years.

4. The applicant had made progress in custody. Continuing denial of guilt did not, without more, prevent exceptional progress. However, in the circumstances, denial was relevant to assessing insight and rehabilitation because two identified risks were manipulative behaviour and deviousness. The court was therefore entitled to view the claimed progress with caution.

5. Having regard to the seriousness of the offences, the continuing denial of guilt and the relevant risk factors, there were no good grounds for reducing the notified minimum term of 20 years, less 352 days spent on remand. The application was refused.

The judgment states that the applicant’s conviction appeal was refused on 13 May 1999. The present proceedings were a first-instance review of the minimum term under paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.