R v Sundeep Singh

For murder sentencing, a domestic killing may be a murder done for gain where it was committed in the expectation of obtaining property, even if the killing had mixed motives or an uncertain immediate trigger. A reduction from the 30-year starting point may be appropriate for mixed domestic motives. Mental disorder remains a significant mitigating factor under Schedule 21 even where diminished responsibility has been rejected. Intent to kill is not an aggravating factor, although it may prevent reliance on an otherwise available mitigating factor.

The appellant was convicted of murdering his elderly mother at Leicester Crown Court on 16 December 2024 and received a life sentence with a minimum term of 31 years, less 217 days spent on remand. The sentencing judge classified the offence under paragraph 3 of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 as a murder done for gain, based principally on the appellant’s desire to obtain his mother’s house. The appellant challenged that classification and the assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors, including his mental illness. The appeal also raised an issue concerning a statutory surcharge recorded administratively rather than imposed by the judge.

Appeal allowed. The minimum term of 31 years, less 217 days, was quashed and replaced by a term of 25 years, less time spent on remand, calculated as 24 years and 148 days. The Crown Court record was also ordered to be corrected to remove the surcharge.

1. The sentencing judge was entitled, having heard the evidence, to form his own view on whether the murder was done for gain, applying the approach in R v Healey [2008] EWCA Crim 2583. The evidence supported the conclusion that the killing culminated in a campaign intended to force the victim from her home so that the appellant could take possession of it.
2. The category in paragraph 3(2)(c) of Schedule 21 applied because the murder was committed in the expectation of gain from the victim’s death. It was unnecessary to find that obtaining cash was the motive, or to identify the immediate trigger for the killing. The fact that the appellant’s belief about the house was delusional did not prevent application of Schedule 21.
3. The distinction identified in R v Tailor [2007] EWCA Crim 1564 and R v Hoadley EWCA Crim 1885 justified an initial reduction from the 30-year starting point for a domestic killing involving mixed motives. Aggravating factors were then considered, followed by mitigation.
4. Intent to kill should not have been treated as an aggravating factor. It instead negated the otherwise applicable mitigation in paragraph 10(a). The appellant’s serious delusional disorder significantly reduced culpability and was relevant mitigation under paragraph 10(c), despite the rejection of diminished responsibility.
5. The court calculated the substituted term in accordance with the guidance in Sesay [2024] EWCA Crim 483. Under R v Jones [2018] EWCA Crim 2994, [2019] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 50, a surcharge added administratively where it was not imposed by the sentencing judge was unlawful. Section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 prevented the appellate court from correcting the omission by imposing the surcharge itself.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2025] EWCA Crim 1520. Allowed the appeal, substituted a minimum term of 25 years less time spent on remand, and ordered removal of the surcharge.
2. Crown Court at Leicester — Convicted the appellant of murder and imposed a life sentence with a minimum term of 31 years less 217 days spent on remand.