Rogers, R v

For a racially aggravated murder, the statutory starting point is applied before the sentencing court makes an evaluative reduction for relevant mitigation. A substantial reduction will not be disturbed where the judge has properly taken account of the offender’s intent, the degree of racial aggravation, mental condition, absence of premeditation and history. A comparator sentence provides no assistance unless its material circumstances are sufficiently alike. An extension of time may be refused where the proposed sentence appeal lacks merit and the delay is not properly explained.

Daniel Rogers was convicted of murder at the Crown Court at Luton after a sustained, racially aggravated assault on a taxi driver, who died seven days later from a head injury. He received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years.

The sentencing judge adopted a 30-year starting point under paragraph 5(2)(g) of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, then reduced it for significant mitigation. More than five years later, Rogers sought an extension of time and renewed permission to appeal his sentence. He contended that the reduction should have been greater and that insufficient regard had been given to R v Murphy [2009] EWCA Crim 2859.

The central issues were whether the minimum term was arguably excessive and whether the substantial delay was adequately justified.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal sentence had no merit, and the application for an extension of time was refused.

2. The 30-year starting point was correct because the murder was racially aggravated within paragraph 5(2)(g) of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The sentencing judge had then made a substantial five-year reduction to reflect the applicant’s intention to cause grievous bodily harm rather than death, the relatively low level of racial aggravation, Tourette’s Syndrome and associated OCD, lack of premeditation, and absence of a history of serious violence.

3. The court agreed with the single judge that the sentencing judge had considered all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and that the 25-year minimum term could not be faulted. There was no basis for a greater reduction.

4. R v Murphy [2009] EWCA Crim 2859 did not assist as a sentencing comparison. Its circumstances were materially different, principally because the offender there was 18 whereas the applicant was 27 when he committed the murder.

5. The reasons in the applicant’s letters did not provide a sufficient or proper explanation for the delay of five years and four months. The absence of merit in the proposed appeal was an additional reason to refuse the extension.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)— On a renewed application, the court found no merit in the proposed sentence appeal and refused an extension of time: [2019] EWCA Crim 608.
• Crown Court at Luton— Rogers was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years.