Tarbox, R. v (Rev 1)

When setting a minimum term for murder under Criminal Justice Act 2003 Schedule 21, the court must assess overall seriousness by balancing all relevant aggravating and mitigating features. A domestic relationship need not fall within the Domestic Abuse guideline’s definition of intimate partners or family members before violation of trust and security can aggravate sentence. Exploited victim vulnerability is significant aggravation. In a strangulation case, an intention to cause grievous bodily harm may justify only a comparatively small reduction because its seriousness may fall close to an intention to kill. Sustained concealment of a body to avoid detection and punishment is a very serious aggravating feature.

The offender was convicted in the Crown Court at Leeds of murdering Susan Howells and of preventing the decent and lawful burial of her body. He received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 16 years for murder, together with a concurrent two-year sentence for preventing burial.

The Attorney General referred the murder sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that the minimum term was unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had given sufficient weight to the aggravating features, including the victim’s vulnerability, the domestic context, strangulation and prolonged concealment of the body.

The court granted leave to refer the sentence and allowed the reference. The minimum term for murder was quashed as unduly lenient and replaced by a minimum term of 18 years. The sentence for preventing lawful burial was outside the reference and remained unchanged.

1. Starting point and aggravation. The 15-year starting point under Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was appropriate. The court nevertheless had to adjust it to reflect the overall seriousness of the offending. Strangulation, whether manual or by ligature, was a particularly brutal method of killing. The offender’s repeated convictions for common assault were also aggravating.
2. Domestic context and vulnerability. The circumstances did not fall within the Domestic Abuse guideline because the offender and victim were not intimate partners or family members. The domestic context nevertheless represented a violation of the trust and security which the victim could reasonably have expected. The victim’s known vulnerability, which the offender exploited, was a significant aggravating feature.
3. Concealment and burial. Applying the principle stated in R v Godward [1998] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 385, the intention behind disposing of or concealing a body is central to sentence for conduct preventing lawful burial. Here the conduct was intended to avoid detection, arrest and punishment for murder, continued for months, prolonged the family’s anguish and was a very serious aggravating feature.
4. Mitigation. The finding that the killing was intended to cause grievous bodily harm rather than death was mitigating, but strangulation meant that the seriousness of that intention fell not far short of an intention to kill. Only a comparatively small reduction was justified. Lack of premeditation and the offender’s mental-health difficulties carried limited weight in the circumstances.
5. Balancing the factors required a significant upward movement from the statutory starting point. The 16-year minimum term failed adequately to reflect the overall seriousness and was unduly lenient. The least appropriate minimum term was 18 years.

• Crown Court at Leeds: The offender was convicted of murder and preventing the decent and lawful burial of a dead body. On 10 December 2020 he received life imprisonment with a 16-year minimum term for murder and a concurrent two-year sentence for preventing burial.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held the murder sentence unduly lenient, quashed the 16-year minimum term and substituted 18 years. The sentence for preventing burial remained unchanged.