Whittle, R v

In fixing a minimum term for murder, a sentencing judge may identify relevant aggravating features beyond the statutory criteria in Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. A killing may be premeditated even if the offender did not begin the day intending to kill, where an intention to kill is formed before a deliberate pursuit and attack.

On an appeal against sentence, a severe sentence will stand where the judge properly evaluated the aggravating and mitigating features and it cannot be characterised as manifestly excessive.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Chelmsford of murdering Natalie Hastings by deliberately pursuing her in a motor vehicle, striking her and driving over her. He received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years.

He appealed against the minimum term. He contended that the offending was out of character, was not premeditated, and that insufficient weight had been given to his ill-health, drug addiction and other mitigation. The central issue was whether the minimum term was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The minimum term of 20 years was severe but was not manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the brutal manner of the killing as an aggravating feature outside the statutory criteria in Schedule 21 paragraph 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The appellant deliberately pursued a vulnerable and defenceless woman in a public street, used a car as a weapon, drove into and over her, and caused an event witnessed by members of the public.

3. The court rejected the submission that the killing lacked premeditation. Although the appellant had not left home intending to kill, he had formed that intention by the time he began pursuing the deceased. His earlier attempt to run her down, the pursuit and the eventual attack supported that conclusion.

4. The deceased’s vulnerability arose from the circumstances. She was alone, fled from the appellant and had no realistic means of escaping the speeding vehicle. The court also accepted that the sentencing judge had considered the devastating effect on her family.

5. The appellant’s cerebral palsy, previous stroke and drug addiction had been taken into account. The mitigation was limited and could not outweigh the gravity of the aggravating features. The sentence therefore stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the minimum term.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford: on 7 January 2019 convicted the appellant of murder and, on 11 January 2019, imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years less time spent on remand.