Eddie Ratcliffe v R

For a defendant aged 15 or 16 convicted of a murder of particularly high seriousness, the statutory starting point in Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 must first be selected by reference to the prescribed age and seriousness categories. Relative culpability and maturity do not make that starting point moveable, although they may affect the later assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors. A murder may involve sadistic conduct where the offender knowingly participates in a brutal killing while aware of a co-offender’s pleasure in the victim’s suffering. Hostility related to transgender identity need only be a partial motive. Sentencing judges must identify the relevant factors and explain their overall balance, but need not assign numerical values to them. Expert evidence on autism and maturity must be considered, while culpability remains for the sentencer. Leave to appeal was refused.

The applicant was convicted of murdering Brianna Ghey, together with Scarlett Jenkinson, following a trial at the Crown Court at Manchester. On 2 February 2024, Yip J sentenced him to detention during His Majesty’s pleasure and imposed a minimum term of 20 years, less time spent on remand.

He sought leave to appeal against the minimum term, arguing that the statutory starting point was wrongly selected, that his role, age, maturity and autism spectrum disorder were insufficiently reflected, that aggravating factors were double-counted, and that the sentencing reasons were inadequate. The central issues were whether the 20-year starting point was available to him, whether the murder involved sadistic conduct or hostility related to transgender identity, and whether the sentencing judge properly assessed aggravating and mitigating factors.

1. Disposition. The Full Court refused leave to appeal. The minimum term was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
2. Statutory starting point. Under the Sentencing Act 2020 and Schedule 21, the judge must first choose the applicable statutory starting point. That figure remains a starting point, and later consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors may produce a minimum term of any length. The applicant’s different role from Scarlett did not alter the applicable statutory starting point. Age was reflected in the statutory categories; maturity could be considered later as part of culpability and mitigation. The court applied the approach in R v Peters [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 101.
3. Sadistic conduct and hostility. Following R v Bonellie [2009] Cr App R (S) 55, sadistic conduct requires more than ordinary pleasure in attacking another. The judge was entitled to find the applicant participated in a brutal murder while aware of Scarlett’s pleasure in Brianna’s suffering. Paragraph 3(2)(g) of Schedule 21 did not require hostility related to transgender identity to be the sole or primary motive. A partial motive was sufficient under section 66(4)(b)(v) of the Sentencing Act 2020. The finding of fact was open to the judge, applying the threshold in R v Cairns [2013] 2 Cr App R (S) 73.
4. Aggravation, mitigation and mental disorder. The judge was entitled to take account of planning, the failed earlier attempt, the applicant’s participation in the failed lure, the victim’s vulnerability, knowledge of the abuse of trust, the multiple features making the offence particularly serious, and the public location. She also considered good character, rehabilitation, immaturity, reduced culpability and the additional hardship of detention. The court applied the principle in R v Kamarra-Jarra [2024] EWCA Crim 198 that chronological age does not determine maturity-based culpability. The judge was entitled to conclude that autism and associated impairments did not significantly reduce culpability.
5. Reasons. A sentencing judge must identify the statutory starting point, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the overall conclusion reached. The judge need not assign numerical values to individual factors or to the factors collectively. Sentencing is an exercise of judgment rather than a mathematical calculation. The judge’s reasons satisfied that duty, and her conclusion that aggravation and mitigation balanced each other was one she was entitled to reach.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 5 December 2024, the Full Court refused leave to appeal against the 20-year minimum term: [2024] EWCA Crim 1498.
2. Crown Court at Manchester: On 2 February 2024, Yip J sentenced the applicant to detention during His Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum term of 20 years, less time spent in custody on remand.