Regina v Cole Jarvis

After a trial, a sentencing judge may make findings about the factual basis for sentence even where the prosecution did not present the case in that way, provided the findings are consistent with the verdict, proved to the criminal standard and reached through a fair process. The absence of a robbery or theft charge does not itself prevent a finding that a murder was done for gain. However, findings supporting an enhanced starting point must be properly founded. A tenuous evidential basis cannot justify the 30-year starting point. The correct starting point must be used and the aggravating and mitigating factors balanced afresh.

The appellant was convicted of murdering Connor Lyons after a trial at Kingston upon Hull Crown Court. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years. The sentencing judge found that the murder had been planned as part of a robbery and was therefore a murder done for gain, attracting a 30-year starting point, although the prosecution had not advanced the case on that basis and both parties submitted that the starting point should be 15 years. The central issues were whether the judge could make those findings after trial and whether they were properly founded on the evidence.

Appeal allowed in part. The minimum term of 25 years was quashed and a minimum term of 21 years was substituted.

1. The sentencing judge was entitled to determine the factual basis for sentence after hearing the trial. He was not bound by the way in which the prosecution had presented its case. The absence of a robbery or theft charge did not, by itself, preclude a finding that the murder was done for gain. The judge had given advance notice of his concerns and had provided both parties with a fair opportunity to address them. The approach was consistent with Turner, [2022] EWCA Crim 617.
2. Those powers were subject to the requirement that findings of fact be properly founded. The critical findings were that the appellant had planned from the outset to lure the deceased to a remote location, had taken rope to assist a robbery, had maintained a pretence until the opportunity arose, and had killed after the robbery to avoid detection. The Court considered that this was a tenuous basis for treating the murder as one done for gain. Except for the findings that a ligature had been used and that the appellant intended to kill, those critical findings were not properly founded.
3. The 30-year starting point was therefore wrong. The correct starting point under the applicable framework in the Sentencing Act 2020 was 15 years. The Court balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors afresh. The aggravating factors included the manner of killing, the background of bullying and violence, the theft and attempted sale of the bicycle, and the appellant’s attempts to conceal what he had done. The mitigating factors were his age and lack of previous convictions. The aggravating factors significantly outweighed the mitigation, producing an ultimate minimum term of 21 years.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2022] EWCA Crim 1251, the sentence appeal was allowed to the extent that the 25-year minimum term was quashed and a 21-year minimum term substituted.
2. Kingston upon Hull Crown Court — Following conviction for murder after trial, HHJ Thackray QC imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years.