R v Marcus Jermaine Osborne

A whole life order is required where an adult murderer’s offending is so exceptionally serious that a minimum term would not provide just punishment. The assessment must consider all the circumstances, including the statutory starting points, associated offences, aggravating and mitigating factors, and a guilty plea.

A guilty plea must be considered when deciding whether to impose a whole life order. It does not, however, require a minimum term where the court is satisfied that a whole life order remains justified. Whether murder involves sexual conduct is fact-specific. The court may consider the offender’s motivation, the nature and timing of sexual conduct, and its effect on the gravity and depravity of the offending.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Leeds to the murders of his former partner and her friend, rape, and false imprisonment. He received life sentences with whole life orders for the murders, together with concurrent sentences of ten years’ imprisonment for rape and false imprisonment.

He sought leave to appeal against sentence. He contended that the judge had given insufficient weight to his early guilty pleas and had overstated the sexual nature of the murders. The central issue was whether those matters made the whole life orders wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The judge was entitled to conclude that the murders, together with the associated rape and false imprisonment, were exceptionally serious and justified whole life orders.

2. Under Sentencing Act 2020, Schedule 21, a whole life order is the starting point for an adult offender where the statutory conditions are met, but the court must assess all relevant circumstances. The court applied the principles summarised in R v Stewart and Others [2022] EWCA Crim 1063. It held that this was not a borderline case: even a very long minimum term would not have amounted to just punishment.

3. The judge had not overstated the sexual nature of the offending. Whether a murder involves sexual conduct is fact-specific; the relevant inquiry is not confined by a single definition. The applicant’s sexual jealousy, sexual activity involving one victim when dead or dying, and the stripping, posing and sexual mutilation of the other victim supported the conclusion that both murders involved sexual conduct to a significant degree. The court applied the approach in R v Mottram [2022] EWCA Crim 954, which explained the limited scope of the formulation in R v Daniel Walker [2007] EWCA Crim 2631.

4. The judge had properly considered the guilty pleas as required by section 73 and the guilty-plea guideline. A plea remains relevant when deciding whether to make a whole life order, but it produces no reduction once such an order is properly made. The judge considered the pleas alongside the associated offences, prior domestic abuse, offending on bail, planning, and the victims’ suffering. Her conclusion was therefore unimpeachable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence and upheld the whole life orders: [2024] EWCA Crim 1720.
• Crown Court at Leeds: Following guilty pleas, imposed life imprisonment with whole life orders for two murders and concurrent ten-year sentences for rape and false imprisonment.