Lowe, R. v

For the purposes of Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21, the examples in paragraph 5(2) do not exhaust the circumstances in which a 30-year starting point may be appropriate. The court must nevertheless decide whether the offence’s seriousness is particularly high.

Where that threshold is not met, the 15-year starting point applies, subject to substantial aggravation for the manner of the killing and grave post-death conduct. An intention to kill is already assumed by the Schedule’s structure and is not itself an aggravating feature. A weapon fetched from elsewhere within the premises during the attack is not necessarily a weapon taken to the scene for paragraph 5A.

R v Lowe concerned an appeal against a minimum term of 28 years imposed after the appellant’s conviction for murdering his former partner in the Crown Court at Truro.

The sentencing judge treated the offence as particularly high in seriousness and adopted a 30-year starting point under Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. She reduced that figure to 28 years after considering the absence of premeditation. The appellant contended that the correct starting point was 15 years and that the resulting term was excessive.

The central issue was whether the statutory starting point had been correctly selected and, if not, whether the minimum term was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge erred in treating the murder as one of particularly high seriousness under paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The appropriate starting point was therefore 15 years, not 30 years.

2. Paragraph 5(2) provides examples only. It does not create a closed list of cases capable of attracting a 30-year starting point. However, the combination of aggravating features in this case did not reach the statutory threshold for paragraph 5.

3. Paragraph 5A did not apply. The metal pole was kept at the premises and was fetched during the assault; it was not taken to the scene within the meaning of the paragraph. The court applied the approach in Dillon, [2015] EWCA Crim. 3. The rock had likewise not been taken to the scene.

4. The court held that the Schedule presupposes an intention to kill. That intention was consequently not an aggravating feature, although the exceptionally violent manner of the killing plainly was. The attack rendered the victim defenceless before the appellant fetched and used a second, particularly vicious weapon.

5. Two further grave aggravating features were the appellant’s prompt financial use of the deceased’s bank card and his treatment of her body after death. The latter conduct greatly increased the family’s anguish. The absence of premeditation was the only mitigation, but carried little weight.

6. Those features justified a very substantial uplift from 15 years. The trial judge was best placed to assess its extent. A 28-year minimum term was severe and high within the available range, but was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the 28-year minimum term: [2019] EWCA Crim 284.

• Crown Court at Truro: following conviction for murder, imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term of 28 years, less time spent on remand.