Scott, R v

In sentencing for attempted murder, exceptionally serious aggravating features may justify a sentence above the highest range in the applicable guideline. This remains so where the guideline has no higher category. Multiple very young and vulnerable victims, grave and enduring harm, deliberate intention to kill, earlier violence and a gross breach of trust may cumulatively require that course.

A drug-induced psychosis arising from voluntary unlawful drug use ordinarily attracts little or no mitigating weight. A late guilty plea should receive no more than the guideline reduction unless there is a justified basis for a greater allowance.

The Solicitor General referred the offender’s sentence as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. At Sheffield Crown Court, the offender pleaded guilty on the day fixed for trial to four counts of attempted murder of his children and stepdaughter, and to dangerous driving.

The sentencing judge imposed concurrent life sentences with a 14-year minimum term. The victims were very young, had been attacked with a hammer and then injured when the offender deliberately drove the vehicle into a wall. They sustained grave and, in several respects, lifelong harm.

The central issues were whether the offending justified a sentence above the top range for Level 1 attempted murder, what mitigating weight could be given to a voluntary drug-induced psychosis, and whether 20 per cent credit for the late guilty pleas was justified.

Disposition

The court granted leave and allowed the Solicitor General’s reference. The life sentences for attempted murder were unduly lenient because the 14-year minimum term materially understated the gravity of the offending.

1. The completed offences would have fallen within paragraphs 4 or 5 of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. They therefore fell within Level 1 of the Attempted Murder Definitive Guideline. Although that level ordinarily has a starting point of 30 years and a range of 27 to 35 years for a determinate sentence, the guideline permits departure from the range where the circumstances make this appropriate. Where, as here, Level 1 is the highest level, exceptionally serious aggravation may justify going above it.

2. R v Spence, reported as [2015] 1 Cr App R(S) 67, supported that approach. The four very young and vulnerable victims suffered appalling, long-term harm. The offender intended to kill them, had first attacked them with a hammer, and committed a gross breach of parental trust. Those features cumulatively required a sentence significantly beyond the top guideline range.

3. The offender’s acute psychosis resulted from his voluntary abuse of unlawful drugs. It could not significantly reduce culpability and attracted little or no mitigating weight.

4. The guilty pleas were notified immediately before trial. The evidence established that the offender had been fit to plead and had been able to understand the charges and form the requisite intent months earlier. Later psychiatric material could concern mitigation and disposal, but could not justify almost double the maximum guideline reduction for a plea tendered at that stage. The correct credit was 10 per cent, not 20 per cent.

5. A determinate term of at least 48 years after credit was required. The court substituted concurrent life sentences with a 24-year minimum term, less 177 days on remand, producing concurrent minimum terms of 23 years and 188 days. The driving disqualification became 26 years in total, with the extended retest requirement remaining in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted the Solicitor General leave to refer the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held it unduly lenient, and substituted concurrent life sentences with a 24-year minimum term.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 15 February 2018, imposed concurrent life sentences with a 14-year minimum term for four attempted murders, and a concurrent sentence for dangerous driving.