Reynolds, R. v

A whole life order is reserved for the few exceptionally serious murders where, after considering all aggravating and mitigating features, just punishment and retribution require that order. The guidance in Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21 must be applied to the particular facts; earlier sentencing decisions decided on their own facts do not determine the outcome. A guilty plea remains relevant when deciding whether a whole life order is appropriate, although it may carry little weight where it is late, the evidence is overwhelming, or remorse is absent. Public protection against future offending is not a factor in that assessment.

Two applicants challenged whole life orders imposed following guilty pleas to murder. Reynolds murdered a 17-year-old girl after detailed planning. The murder had sexual and sadistic motivations, and he sexually violated and degraded her body after death. Wilkie J imposed a whole life order at the Crown Court at Stafford.

Rosser murdered a four-year-old boy while a guest in the child’s home. The murder involved prolonged violence, sadistic motivation and sexually motivated acts. Coulson J imposed a whole life order at the Crown Court at Bradford.

Each application raised whether the sentencing judge had properly applied the whole-life starting point in Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, including the significance of mitigation and guilty pleas.

1. Both applications were refused. Each sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that only a whole life order was the just punishment.

2. Under section 269 and Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court must consider the statutory guidance and all relevant aggravating and mitigating features. A murder of a child involving sexual or sadistic motivation normally falls within paragraph 4(2)(b), but the ultimate decision depends critically on the facts of the individual case. A whole life order remains reserved for the few exceptionally serious offences where just punishment and retribution require it.

3. The court followed the guidance in R v Jones (Neil) [2005] EWCA Crim 3115 and R v Oakes and others [2012] EWCA Crim 2435. Earlier fact-specific sentencing decisions, including Mullen [2008] EWCA Crim 592, could only illustrate the application of principle and could not determine whether a whole life order was required.

4. A guilty plea must be considered when deciding whether a whole life order is appropriate. It carried little or no mitigating weight here because the evidence was overwhelming and, in Reynolds’s case, the plea was late and unaccompanied by genuine remorse. Rosser’s remorse was taken into account, but did not displace the exceptional seriousness of the offence. Future risk to the public was not a sentencing factor for this purpose.

5. Reynolds’s sustained planning, sexual and sadistic motivation, deliberate infliction of suffering, post-mortem sexual violation and concealment of the body fully justified the order. Rosser’s murder was sadistically and sexually motivated; the judge was entitled to find a degree of premeditation, and his personality disorder and alcohol dependency did not materially reduce culpability.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — refused both applications against whole life orders: [2014] EWCA Crim 2205.
• Crown Court at Stafford — Wilkie J sentenced Reynolds to life imprisonment with a whole life order on 19 December 2013.
• Crown Court at Bradford — Coulson J sentenced Rosser to life imprisonment with a whole life order after his guilty plea on 13 February 2014.