R v Maurice Jones

For murder sentencing, the starting points in Sentencing Act 2020, Schedule 21 are guidelines for assessing seriousness as a whole. Aggravating features may justify a substantial uplift, but they do not automatically make an offence equivalent to the exceptional category in paragraph 3(2). A previous conviction may aggravate where it demonstrates a relevant pattern of domestic violence, even if the earlier offence was less serious. The known presence of a child who witnesses the killing and suffers trauma may also be a significant aggravating feature. An appellate court may substitute a lower minimum term where the sentence is manifestly excessive.

After a jury trial at the Crown Court at Winchester, the appellant was convicted of murder and possessing a bladed article. He received a life sentence with a minimum term of 30 years for murder, less 329 days spent on remand, and a concurrent four-year sentence for the bladed-article offence.

He appealed against the murder minimum term, arguing that insufficient weight should have been given to the lesser seriousness of his previous conviction and that the presence of the deceased’s young child did not justify the uplift imposed. The central issue was whether the resulting minimum term was manifestly excessive in the context of the Sentencing Act 2020 Schedule 21 starting points.

Appeal allowed in part. The court quashed the minimum term of 30 years less 329 days and substituted a minimum term of 27 years, less the same credit, producing a term of 26 years and 36 days.

1. Sentencing framework. The judge was required to impose a life sentence. Because the appellant had taken a knife to the scene, the minimum term had to be at least 25 years under paragraph 4(2)(a) and (b) of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020. The Schedule 21 starting points had to be considered in context, with the seriousness of the offence assessed as a whole and all aggravating and mitigating features taken into account.
2. Aggravating features. The judge was entitled to rely on the appellant’s previous conviction for assault. Although the present murder was a significant escalation, the earlier offence supported a pattern of willingness to engage in domestic violence. The judge was also entitled to treat the child’s presence as significantly aggravating. The appellant knew the deceased would be with his 16-month-old son, who witnessed the assault, heard his mother’s screams and had suffered traumatic consequences. The fact that the child was not in the immediate physical care of the deceased did not remove the aggravating feature.
3. Manifest excessiveness. The court nevertheless held that the offence should not have been treated as equivalent to the category in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 21, which includes murder involving sadistic conduct or the murder of two or more people. An uplift of more than five years, after allowing for mitigation, made the sentence manifestly excessive. Having regard to the appellant’s youth, immaturity and all the circumstances, 27 years was appropriate.
4. Ancillary matters. The court had regard to section 33 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and considered a further pre-sentence report unnecessary. A victim surcharge is mandatory but must be ordered by the judge: R v Jones [2018] EWCA Crim 2994. The court therefore imposed the recorded surcharge of £228. The sentence on count 2 was unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On appeal against sentence, the court allowed the appeal in part and substituted a minimum term of 26 years and 36 days for the murder count: [2025] EWCA Crim 1666.
• Crown Court at Winchester — Following conviction after trial, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 30-year minimum term for murder, less 329 days spent on remand, and a concurrent four-year term for possessing a bladed article.