R v Amie Louise Kehoe

A renewed application for permission to appeal a minimum term will fail where the sentencing judge adopted an appropriate starting point and adequately allowed for the offender’s youth, good character, lack of previous convictions and absence of an intention to kill. A disparity with a co-offender’s minimum term is not arguable where the offender’s participation was materially equivalent and the difference is explained by the co-offender’s more serious criminal record.

The applicant was convicted of murder at the Crown Court at Hull on 24 November 2023. She received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 28 years, less time spent on remand, pursuant to section 322 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

She renewed her application for permission to appeal against sentence. She relied on her age and immaturity, previous good character, lack of intent to kill, asserted lesser role, and the disparity between her minimum term and that imposed on her co-defendant, Keeran Edge. The central issue was whether those matters made the sentence arguable as excessive.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence was refused. The application was not arguable.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to begin from a 30-year starting point. The applicant deliberately returned after seeing an earlier assault so as to join a further attack. Her arrival added impetus to the violence. She was an equal participant in the murderous and sadistic assault, including conduct which caused or contributed to the victim’s fatal injuries.

3. The judge had adequately considered the mitigation relied upon. This included her relative youth and immaturity, good character, absence of previous convictions, and intention to cause serious bodily harm rather than to kill. The court agreed that she played a full part in the escalating attack and encouraged it, despite not instigating the original violence.

4. There was no material distinction between the applicant’s participation and that of Edge. The one-year difference between their minimum terms was justified by Edge’s considerable criminal record. It did not disclose an improper disparity.

5. The section 45 reporting restriction protecting the name of a witness was continued.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence refused.
• Crown Court at Hull: the applicant was convicted of murder on 24 November 2023 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 28-year minimum term, less 279 days on remand, pursuant to section 322 of the Sentencing Act 2020.