Quinn, R. v

When fixing a minimum term for murder under Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21, a sentencing judge may treat a material connection between the killing and an established drug-dealing operation as aggravating. That may justify an uplift from the applicable statutory starting point even where the specified aggravating factor of significant planning and premeditation is not made out.

A claimed mitigating factor of no intent to kill fails where the judge is sure that the offender intended to kill. A claimed lack of premeditation may also fail where the offender’s conduct shows a determined attempt to locate and attack the object of revenge. An acquittal of a co-defendant does not logically determine the offender’s individual intent.

The applicant was convicted of murder in the Crown Court at Northampton after pursuing and twice stabbing Daniel Fitzjohn, who had intervened in an earlier confrontation between the applicant and a drug user. The applicant had been engaged in supplying crack cocaine and acted after Mr Fitzjohn knocked him down during that confrontation.

The trial judge imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term of 27 years. The applicable starting point was 25 years under paragraph 5A of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused by a single judge and renewed before the full court. The central issue was whether the two-year uplift made the minimum term manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application was refused. The minimum term of 27 years was not arguably manifestly excessive.
2. Under section 269 and Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the judge correctly adopted the 25-year starting point prescribed by paragraph 5A. He was also entitled not to find the statutory aggravating factor of significant planning and premeditation in paragraph 10(a).
3. The absence of that specified factor did not prevent an uplift. The murder was materially aggravated by its connection with the applicant’s established drug-dealing activity. The dispute with Cowdell arose from that activity, and the applicant acted in furtherance of it when the initial confrontation occurred. Mr Fitzjohn’s intervention and the applicant’s resulting humiliation supplied the motive for revenge.
4. The evidence supported the finding that the applicant intended to kill. After driving at Cowdell, he obtained weapons and assistance, sought those on whom he intended vengeance, pursued Mr Fitzjohn, and stabbed him twice. Sanghera’s acquittal of murder had no logical bearing on the applicant’s own intention. The statutory mitigating factor in paragraph 11(a) was therefore not established.
5. The judge was likewise entitled to reject the suggested lack of premeditation under paragraph 11(b). Although there was no significant planning, the applicant’s conduct demonstrated some planning and a determined attempt to find and attack Mr Fitzjohn. In those circumstances, the two-year increase above the statutory starting point was justified.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2019] EWCA Crim 2122, the court refused the renewed application and upheld the 27-year minimum term.
• Single judge: Refused permission to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Northampton: The applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 27 years.