Khalid, R. v

Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21, the absence of an intention to kill and of premeditation are statutory mitigating factors, but their weight depends on the circumstances. They may carry little weight where offenders set out for a planned group encounter prepared to use serious violence, even if death was not intended.

A participant who knows that a knife is being taken to the scene and is in joint possession of it is party to its taking. The 25-year starting point under paragraph 5A may therefore apply, although the sentencing judge must still reflect differences in the offenders’ actual roles and culpability.

Youth after 18 matters only to the extent that maturity affects culpability. Personal mitigation and previous good character may have limited weight in a murder of the utmost seriousness.

Mohammed Khalid and Neville Bowen were convicted at Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court of the murder of Kyle Bowen following a drug-dealing meeting. Bowen repeatedly stabbed the victim after the victim struck Khalid. Khalid then joined the assault. Bowen had taken two knives to the meeting, and Khalid knew that he was armed.

Bowen received life imprisonment with a 27-year minimum term. Khalid received life imprisonment with a 21-year minimum term. Both appealed their minimum terms. Bowen relied on the absence of an intention to kill and premeditation, his personal circumstances, and alleged disparity. Khalid challenged the applicable starting point, the sentencing differential, and the weight given to mitigation.

The central issues were whether the judge had erred in applying the Schedule 21 starting point and whether either minimum term was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Both appeals against sentence were dismissed. Bowen’s 27-year minimum term and Khalid’s 21-year minimum term were severe but neither was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
2. The court held that paragraph 11 of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 makes absence of an intention to kill and absence of premeditation mitigating factors. Their significance is fact-sensitive. Following the approach in R v Peters [2005] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 627, and explaining Bouhaddaou [2006] EWCA Crim 3190, the court held that they need not provide substantial mitigation where offenders had prepared to use violence in a planned group episode. That was so here: Bowen had brought two knives to a drug transaction, Khalid knew of them, and the retaliatory attack was ferocious and sustained.
3. Bowen’s age, personal difficulties and mental-health problems did not compel a reduction. The sentencing judge had been entitled to give them limited weight in a murder of the utmost seriousness. The aggravating features justified a notional increase from the 25-year starting point before mitigation was considered.
4. The court applied R v Kelly [2011] EWCA Crim 1462. Khalid knew Bowen had a knife and was found to be in joint possession of it. He was therefore party to taking it to the scene, so the 25-year paragraph 5A starting point applied. His lesser role, including that he did not wield a knife, was properly reflected by the four-year reduction and the six-year differential from Bowen’s term.
5. Applying Attorney General's Reference (R v Clarke) [2018] EWCA Crim 185, the court held that age 18 is not a cliff edge, but Khalid’s youth did not justify a substantial discount because there was no evidence that immaturity contributed to his offending. His escalating drug dealing also reduced the mitigating force of his previous good character.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Dismissed both appellants’ appeals against their minimum terms for murder.
• Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames. On 8 March 2018, Khalid and Bowen were convicted of murder. On 12 March 2018, each received life imprisonment, with minimum terms of 21 years and 27 years respectively.