Maynard-Ellis & Anor, R. v

For the 30-year starting point in paragraph 5(2)(e) of Schedule 21, a murder must involve sexual or sadistic conduct. Sexual or sadistic motivation may be relevant, but it does not alone establish the required conduct. The assessment must consider all the evidence and the activities surrounding the killing.

An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge’s evaluation of whether the statutory condition is proved unless there is an error of law or principle, or the conclusion was not open on the evidence. A minimum term is not unduly lenient merely because another judge might have selected a higher term.

The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to challenge as unduly lenient the minimum terms imposed on Nathan Maynard-Ellis and David Leesley.

Following a trial before Soole J and a jury in the Crown Court at Coventry, both offenders were convicted of murdering Julia Rawson. Maynard-Ellis was also convicted of rape, attempted rape and making a threat to kill against CW. On 21 December 2020, each offender received the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. The minimum terms were 30 years for Maynard-Ellis and 19 years for Leesley.

The central issue was whether the murder involved sexual or sadistic conduct so as to require the 30-year starting point under paragraph 5(2)(e) of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, rather than the 15-year starting point applied by the sentencing judge.

1. The application for leave was refused. Neither minimum term was unduly lenient.
2. Paragraph 5(2)(e) of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 identifies, as an illustrative case of particularly high seriousness, a murder involving sexual or sadistic conduct. The statutory word is conduct, rather than motivation. Although a sexual or sadistic motive may be important in the overall evaluation, it cannot by itself bring a murder within the provision.
3. The trial judge was entitled to find that the prosecution had not established sexual or sadistic conduct in the killing. He had heard the factual and expert evidence over a lengthy trial. He could not be sure that conduct after the victim was struck down was sexual or sadistic, that necrophilia or cannibalism had occurred, or that dismemberment formed part of sexual or sadistic conduct. His evidential appraisal was open to him and disclosed no error of law or principle.
4. The Court reaffirmed that appellate intervention may be justified where a judge’s conclusion was not open on the evidence. That was not this case. It is especially difficult to challenge a finding that the judge could not be sure, to the criminal standard, that a particular factual state existed.
5. The sentencing judge was also entitled to apply the 15-year starting point in paragraph 6, aggravate for premeditation and the defilement and concealment of the body, and apply totality when incorporating Maynard-Ellis’s serious additional offending against CW. The resulting 30-year minimum term, and Leesley’s 19-year minimum term, fell within the proper sentencing range. The fact that another judge might have imposed higher terms did not make these terms unduly lenient.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—On the Solicitor General’s reference, refused leave to challenge the offenders’ minimum terms as unduly lenient.
• Crown Court at Coventry—After trial before Soole J and a jury, both offenders were convicted of murder on 9 November 2020. On 21 December 2020 they received mandatory life sentences with minimum terms of 30 years and 19 years respectively.