Cooper & Anor, R. v

For sentencing under Criminal Justice Act 2003, a murder may contain an element of gain where the offender kills to avoid the financial loss flowing from the exposure of conduct that threatens valuable employment and pension rights. Gain need not be the sole motive.

Where the seriousness is particularly high, the minimum term must nevertheless reflect a balanced assessment of all aggravating features and mitigation. Detailed planning, an intention to kill and deliberate concealment of the body may justify a substantial term, but previous good character remains material mitigation.

The appellants were convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of the planned murder of Sameena Imam. Each received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 30 years.

They appealed against sentence. Roger Cooper also renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction, which the court refused. The sentencing appeals raised whether the murder involved gain for the purposes of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and whether 30 years properly balanced the aggravating and mitigating features.

1. The appeals against sentence were allowed to a limited extent. The 30-year minimum terms were quashed and replaced by minimum terms of 28 years, less time spent on remand. Roger Cooper’s renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

2. The judge was entitled to regard the case as a murder involving an element of gain. The murder arose in the context of sexual relationships, but the operative motive included avoiding the loss of Roger Cooper’s valuable employment and pension rights if those relationships were exposed. That financial benefit was sufficient to bring the case within the category of particularly high seriousness. Gain did not have to be the sole motive.

3. The court upheld the judge’s assessment of the grave aggravating features: careful and callous pre-planning, premeditation, an intention to kill, and deliberate concealment of the body. Those features justified a very substantial minimum term.

4. However, the judge was required to balance those features against the appellants’ previous good character. On that balance, 30 years was somewhat too high, although only to a limited extent. A 28-year minimum term was appropriate.

5. There was no proper basis to differentiate David Cooper’s culpability. He knew the purpose of the plan, acted jointly with his brother, and understood the motivation for the murder. The same minimum term therefore applied to both appellants.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the appeals against sentence to the limited extent of substituting 28-year minimum terms; refused Roger Cooper’s renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.
• Birmingham Crown Court — on 20 October 2015, convicted both appellants of murder and imposed life sentences with 30-year minimum terms.