R v Amrit Singh Jhagra

When setting a minimum term for murder, the starting points in Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Code must be applied flexibly, with careful attention to aggravating and mitigating factors. Where two or more victims are murdered, the 30-year starting point reflects the multiple killings, but it may not fully reflect the additional seriousness of carrying a knife in public with the intention of using it as a weapon and then using it to kill. That conduct remains an aggravating factor, subject to avoiding double counting. The court must determine its weight in the circumstances of the individual case. A failure to make any significant adjustment for it may render the total sentence unduly lenient.

The offender, aged 19 with no previous convictions, was convicted in the Crown Court at Sheffield of murdering two people and possessing an offensive weapon in public. The sentencing judge imposed custody for life for each murder, with a minimum term of 24 years, and a concurrent 18-month sentence for the weapon offence.

The Solicitor General referred the sentences to the Court of Appeal under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, arguing that the sentence was unduly lenient because insufficient weight had been given to the carrying and use of the knife. The central issue was whether that conduct required a significant upward adjustment to the 30-year starting point applicable to the murder of two or more persons.

1. Reference allowed and sentences increased. The court granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, quashed the minimum-term sentences for murder as unduly lenient, and substituted custody for life with a minimum term of 26 years for each murder, less 245 days spent on remand. The concurrent sentence for possessing an offensive weapon remained unchanged.
2. The sentencing judge had correctly selected the 30-year starting point under paragraph 3(1) and paragraph 3(2)(f) of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Code, because two persons had been murdered. He had also correctly identified and assessed the offender’s age, limited maturity, lack of previous convictions, remorse, absence of premeditation, intention to cause really serious bodily harm rather than kill, and the continuing effect of the pandemic. Schedule 21 was not to be applied rigidly or mechanically. Paragraph 8 permitted a minimum term of any length after detailed consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors.
3. Where paragraph 3(1) applies, carrying and using a knife or other weapon remains an aggravating factor. The weight given to it varies from case to case, and double counting must be avoided. In some cases it may justify no, or no significant, upward adjustment. However, the paragraph 3(2)(f) starting point reflects the fact that more than one person was murdered, whereas the other paragraph 3(2) categories normally concern the murder of one person. It therefore does not necessarily give sufficient weight to both the multiple killings and the seriousness of carrying a knife in public with the requisite intent and using it to murder.
4. Because the offender had carried the knife intending to have it available as a weapon and had used it to murder, the failure to make any significant upward adjustment was an error producing an unduly lenient total sentence. An increase of at least two years was required. The court did not otherwise interfere with the sentencing judge’s assessment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave to refer was granted. The murder sentences were quashed as unduly lenient and replaced by life sentences with 26-year minimum terms, less 245 days on remand. The weapon sentence remained unchanged.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: following conviction for two murders and possession of an offensive weapon in public, the offender received custody for life for each murder with a 24-year minimum term, and a concurrent 18-month sentence for the weapon offence.