REGINA v VASILE BRATU

In fixing a minimum term for murder, the Sentencing Act 2020 starting point is not necessarily the end point. The court may increase it where serious aggravating features substantially outweigh mitigation.

On an application alleging a manifestly excessive minimum term, the appellate court will not interfere with careful factual findings made to the criminal standard by a trial judge who heard the evidence, absent a proper basis to impugn them. A lack of intention to kill and absence of premeditation may be outweighed by a controlling and violent relationship, use of a weapon, prior offending, delay in seeking help and attempts to conceal the offence.

Regina v Vasile Bratu was a renewed application for leave to appeal against a minimum term of 21 years imposed after the applicant’s conviction for murder.

The trial judge found that the applicant killed Ms Bunea during a controlling and abusive relationship in which he exploited her vulnerability. He stabbed her with scissors after forcing entry to a locked bathroom. The judge found that he had assaulted her previously, delayed seeking assistance and attempted a cover-up.

The applicant contended that the minimum term was manifestly excessive. He challenged the findings of previous assault and delay, and relied on mitigation including lack of intent to kill.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. The minimum term of 21 years was not arguably manifestly excessive.

2. The appropriate starting point under Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 was 15 years, but it was not the inevitable end point. The judge was entitled to increase it to reflect multiple serious aggravating features.

3. The trial judge had heard the evidence and was uniquely placed to make factual findings. Those findings were conspicuously careful and made to the criminal standard. There was no proper basis to impugn the findings that the applicant had previously assaulted the deceased, that their relationship was abusive and controlling, and that the murder occurred when she sought to escape him.

4. The judge was also entitled to find that the applicant delayed calling emergency services and sought to cover up the offence. Evidence of moaning from the bathroom window before the applicant’s calls for help supported that conclusion.

5. The judge gave full weight to the available mitigation, including the absence of premeditation and the finding that the applicant intended really serious bodily harm rather than death. Those matters were substantially outweighed by the aggravating features, particularly the exploitation of the deceased’s vulnerability within a controlling and violent relationship.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against the minimum term refused: [2022] EWCA Crim 445.
• Trial court: the applicant was convicted of murder and, on 21 October 2021, sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years under section 322 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The court is not otherwise identified in the judgment.