R v Eugert Merizaj

In sentencing a participant in a planned murder, a 30-year starting point may require a substantial uplift where the offence involved meticulous preparation, multiple participants and weapons, and subsequent efforts to destroy evidence. There is no double counting where an intention to kill was not separately relied upon as an aggravating factor. Personal mitigation may carry limited weight in a case of this seriousness. Permission to appeal against sentence should be refused where there is no arguable basis and the sentence is not manifestly excessive.

Following a trial at Teesside Crown Court, the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a 32-year minimum term specified under section 322 of the Sentencing Act 2020, subject to credit for time spent on remand. A single judge dismissed the application for leave to appeal as unarguable.

The applicant renewed the application, arguing that the minimum term was manifestly excessive, that the sentencing judge had double counted an intention to kill, and that insufficient allowance had been made for mitigation. The central issue was whether there was an arguable basis for challenging the sentence.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. The 30-year starting point was correct and was not challenged. The circumstances required an upward adjustment. The most significant features were the meticulous preparation and planning, the number of people involved, the variety of weapons taken to the scene, the deceased being lured to the house and executed, and vehicles being ready to facilitate escape.
2. The subsequent efforts to destroy evidence and evade detection were also highly aggravating. Those actions could have been charged separately as perverting the course of justice. Taken together with the other aggravating features identified by the sentencing judge, they required a substantial uplift from the starting point.
3. There was no double counting. The sentencing judge had not listed an intention to kill as an aggravating factor. The applicant's purchase of the axe was relevant to the judge's assessment of his intention and role, but the court found no duplication of aggravating factors.
4. The sentencing judge had allowed for the available mitigation, including the applicant's age, lack of previous convictions, uncertainty about his knowledge that a gun would be used, and the fact that he did not fire the shot or enter the house. In a case of this kind, personal mitigation was unlikely to weigh heavily.
5. There was therefore no arguable basis for contending that the 32-year minimum term was manifestly excessive. The application was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed as unarguable: [2022] EWCA Crim 1586.
• Teesside Crown Court: Following conviction for murder, Lavender J imposed life imprisonment and specified a 32-year minimum term under section 322 of the Sentencing Act 2020, less credit for time spent on remand.