R v Simon Vickers

Schedule 21 must be applied flexibly to achieve a just minimum term. On a reference alleging undue leniency, the reviewing court should not conduct a quasi-mathematical reweighing of aggravating and mitigating features. Where the sentencing judge has correctly identified the relevant features, intervention requires the weight given to them to fall outside the range reasonably open to the judge.

A sentence may be merciful without being unduly lenient. Victims’ views about the proper sentence are irrelevant, although the consequences of the offence and evidence bearing on remorse may properly be considered.

The offender was convicted by a jury at the Crown Court at Teesside of murdering his 14-year-old daughter by stabbing her in the chest during a sudden domestic incident. A life sentence was mandatory. Cotter J set a minimum term of 15 years.

The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer the sentence as unduly lenient. She contended that the judge gave insufficient weight to the victim’s age, the domestic breach of trust, the use of a knife, and an old conviction for wounding with intent. The central issue was whether the judge’s assessment of the aggravating and mitigating features fell outside the range reasonably open to him.

1. Leave to refer the sentence was refused. The minimum term of 15 years was merciful, but it was not unduly lenient.

2. Schedule 21 is not a straitjacket. It must be applied flexibly to achieve a just result: Height [2008] EWCA Crim 2500. A reviewing court should not subject a sentencing judge’s assessment to a quasi-mathematical balancing exercise directed at marginal differences in weight.

3. The judge had correctly identified the material features. These included the victim’s age, the domestic context and breach of trust, the sudden acquisition and use of the knife, the lack of premeditation, the absence of an intention to kill, and the offender’s profound remorse. His treatment of the old conviction for wounding with intent did not disregard it. He permissibly concluded that its age and lack of relevance meant that it should not increase the minimum term.

4. Once the relevant features had been correctly identified, the Solicitor General had to show that the weight attributed to them was outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. That demanding threshold was not met. The judge’s coherent and humane resolution of an exceptionally difficult sentencing exercise was justified.

5. The court also applied the guidance in the Criminal Practice Directions 2023: victims’ opinions on sentence are not relevant. Family support for the offender could not qualify the jury’s verdict. Evidence of his previously good character and the depth of his remorse could, however, bear on the minimum term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was refused. The court held that the minimum term was not unduly lenient.
• Crown Court at Teesside: Cotter J sentenced the offender, following his jury conviction for murder, to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years.