R v Tony Russel Brooks

Under paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, the statutory starting point for a minimum term is subject to an unrestricted, case-specific adjustment for aggravating and mitigating features. The statutory lists are not exhaustive. The exercise is one of judgment and balance, rather than mathematical calculation.

Significant mental and physical suffering before death may materially aggravate murder even where it was not intentionally or negligently inflicted, particularly where it was obvious and the offender continued. A substantial cumulative uplift may be justified by coercive control, abuse of trust, prolonged suffering, concealment, exploitation, blame directed at innocent people and relevant previous convictions. Appellate intervention requires a sentence to be manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty to murdering Kirstie Ellis and was sentenced by His Honour Judge Bayliss KC at Leeds Crown Court on 3 November 2022. The judge took the 15-year starting point in paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, increased it to 27 years for aggravating features, and then applied one-twelfth credit for the guilty plea.

He appealed against sentence, arguing that the 12-year uplift was wrong in principle and fact and that the resulting minimum term was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the extent of the adjustment, assessed cumulatively, justified appellate interference.

Appeal dismissed. The minimum term of 27 years before credit for the guilty plea was not manifestly excessive.

1. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 supplied the relevant 15-year starting point. There is no limit on the degree of adjustment for aggravating and mitigating features. The statutory lists are non-exhaustive, and the sentencing judge retains an ultimate discretion to reflect the seriousness of the individual offence. The exercise is a balancing exercise, not a mathematical one.

2. A very significant uplift was required. The court identified coercive and controlling behaviour and physical abuse; the murder in the victim’s home and the gross abuse of trust; repeated beating and terrifying strangulation followed by objects being forced into the victim’s throat; failure to report the death and leaving the body to decompose; repeated return visits and online impersonation designed to conceal the death; theft of possessions and money; blaming two identifiable innocent people; destruction of clothing and removal of the CCTV hard drive; and previous convictions.

3. The fact that the suffering before death may not have been intentional, or even negligently caused, did not deprive it of significance. The suffering must have been obvious to the appellant, who nevertheless continued the attack. The court also balanced the possible lack of premeditation before the first attack against the premeditation before the second.

4. The combination of aggravating features made the case close to the particularly high seriousness category in paragraph 3 of Schedule 21, which carries a 30-year starting point. An uplift of 12 years was therefore fully justified. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court upheld the minimum term of 27 years before applying one-twelfth credit for the guilty plea.
• Leeds Crown Court: His Honour Judge Bayliss KC imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term of 24 years and nine months, less time spent on remand, on 3 November 2022.