R v Harrison Lawrence Van-Pooss

In an Attorney General’s reference against an unduly lenient murder sentence, a high Schedule 21 starting point does not prevent a further increase for aggravating features not already reflected in it. The court must avoid double counting, but may treat calculated feigning of psychosis to obtain an unjustly favourable outcome as a serious aggravating factor. Age, mental disorder, difficult childhood and lack of previous convictions remain relevant mitigation, but may be outweighed by powerful aggravation. Where a late guilty plea follows conduct that materially prolongs or complicates proceedings, credit must reflect its true value and may be assessed globally rather than by an artificial percentage.

The offender pleaded guilty to murdering Claire Knights after a serious sexual assault. On 28 February 2025, Garnham J sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 24 years and 24 days.

The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, arguing that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigation and that the judge had allowed excessive credit for the very late guilty plea. The central issues were the proper balance of aggravation and mitigation, and the effect of the offender’s conduct in feigning psychosis on both sentence and credit.

The court granted leave to refer the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It quashed the sentence imposed below and substituted a minimum term of 31 years, less 501 days spent on remand, resulting in 29 years and 229 days.

1. Starting point and double counting. The murder involved sexual conduct and fell within the particularly high seriousness category under Schedule 21, for which the starting point was 30 years. That starting point already incorporated many aggravating features common to murders of that gravity. The court therefore had to avoid double counting, while identifying additional features justifying an increase.
2. Aggravation and mitigation. The offender’s age, personality disorder, difficult childhood and absence of previous convictions constituted genuine mitigation. Nevertheless, the aggravating factors were more weighty. The violence, restraint, disposal of the body, targeting of a lone woman and other features were powerful. The calculated, cynical and manipulative feigning of psychosis, intended to secure an unjustly favourable outcome, was itself a serious aggravating factor and placed beyond doubt the need to increase the starting point.
3. Guilty plea. The plea was very late. Although psychiatric evidence reasonably contributed to the delay and the plea saved witnesses and public resources, the feigned psychosis had complicated and prolonged the investigation and prosecution. The court declined to express the appropriate reduction through a precise arithmetic percentage. From the 33-year sentence, the plea deserved no more than two years’ credit.
4. Final order. The appropriate sentence before credit was 33 years. After two years’ credit and deduction of 501 days on remand, the minimum term was fixed at 29 years and 229 days.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Under [2025] EWCA Crim 1240, leave was granted, the sentence was quashed and a minimum term of 31 years less 501 days was substituted.
• Crown Court at Canterbury — Garnham J sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 24 years and 24 days.