R v Brian Jewell

Where an offender takes a knife to the scene of a murder intending that it should be available for defensive use as a weapon, and uses it to commit the murder, the case falls within the 25-year starting point in paragraph 4 of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020. A lawful purpose for acquiring the knife on an earlier occasion does not displace the material purpose for carrying it at the time of the killing.

A jury’s rejection of a defence of good reason for carrying the knife may reinforce that conclusion. An appellate court will not interfere with a minimum term where the correct statutory starting point was selected and the sentencing judge properly considered the mitigation, absent an error of principle or an arguable basis for finding the evaluation excessive.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Exeter of murder and of possessing the knife used in the killing in a public place, contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He was sentenced to detention in a young offender institution for life with a minimum term of 20 years, less time spent on remand. The term included a one-year adjustment for separate offending.

The sentencing judge adopted the 25-year starting point under paragraph 4 of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020. The judge found that, although the knife had initially been acquired partly for bushcraft, the applicant carried it into the city centre so that it would be available for self-protection if needed.

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, the applicant contended that paragraph 5, with its 15-year starting point, should have applied, or that the mitigation warranted a substantially lower term. The central issue was whether an intended defensive use of a knife brought the case within paragraph 4.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. The judge correctly selected the 25-year starting point under paragraphs 4(1) and 4(2) of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020.

2. The relevant inquiry was the applicant’s purpose in taking the knife with him to Sidwell Street, rather than all of his purposes in acquiring it on the preceding day. At the time he went into the city centre, he had no domestic or bushcraft need for it. The unchallenged finding was that he carried it so that it would be available for defensive use if necessary.

3. Use of a knife as a weapon includes defensive use. Since the applicant carried the knife for that purpose and used it in committing the murder, the case fell firmly within paragraphs 4(1) and 4(2). The judge was bound to use the 25-year starting point; paragraph 5 was not available.

4. The jury’s conviction for the bladed-article offence provided a further and cumulative answer. It rejected the applicant’s defence that he had a good reason for carrying the knife in the public place at the time of the killing.

5. The judge had carefully considered the applicant’s age, difficult background, provocation, excessive self-defence, remorse and other mitigation, reducing the minimum term to 19 years before allowing one additional year for separate offending. There was no error of principle and no arguable basis to impugn the judge’s evaluation of the weight of those matters. The resulting minimum term was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — By [2024] EWCA Crim 1232, dismissed the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Exeter — Following conviction before Saini J and a jury, imposed detention in a young offender institution for life for murder, with a minimum term of 20 years less 236 days on remand.