R v Mark Ross

For murder committed for gain, the 30-year starting point in Sentencing Act 2020, Schedule 21, applies even where the killing was not premeditated. Lack of intent to kill and lack of premeditation remain relevant mitigation, but their weight depends on the offender’s purpose and conduct. Where the offender intended serious injury, pursued the criminal objective regardless of consequences, and caused intense suffering witnessed by the public, those factors may carry limited weight and aggravation may be substantial. The sentence will be upheld if the judge reasonably balances the competing features and the result is neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

The appellant was convicted at Leeds Crown Court of murdering a delivery driver while stealing the victim’s van and its parcels. He had pleaded guilty to theft. Goss J imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term of 30 years, subject to credit for time spent on remand, and a concurrent six-month sentence for theft. The appellant appealed against sentence, arguing that the starting point was too high and that insufficient weight had been given to the absence of an intention to kill, lack of premeditation and the victim’s unexpected attempt to prevent the theft. The Crown supported the sentence. The central issues were whether the 30-year starting point applied and whether the resulting minimum term was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed. The life sentence and the minimum term of 30 years, before deduction of remand time, were upheld.

1. A murder committed for gain, namely to steal the delivery van and its contents, fell within the 30-year starting point under Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

2. The court accepted the distinction identified in Attorney-General’s Reference No 7 and 8 of 2006 [2006] EWCA Crim 839 and R v Bouhaddaou [2006] EWCA Crim 3190 between planned killing or planned violence and an unplanned, unpremeditated killing during another offence. Lack of intent to kill and lack of premeditation are relevant mitigating considerations.

3. The weight of those considerations is fact-sensitive. Here, the judge was entitled to find that the appellant intended to cause serious injury and pursued the theft regardless of the consequences. The lack of intention to kill therefore carried little weight, and the lack of premeditation carried only modest weight in the context of the appellant’s established pattern of vehicle and property theft.

4. The absence of previous convictions for violence was a neutral factor, not mitigation.

5. Important aggravating features included the intensity of the victim’s suffering and the fact that members of the public witnessed the events and were traumatised. The victim’s public-facing employment, the theft to be taken into account and the commission of the offences while the appellant was under investigation were aggravating features of lesser significance.

6. Standing back, the judge had reasonably balanced aggravation and mitigation. The minimum term was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 1102 , the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Leeds: Goss J imposed life imprisonment with a 30-year minimum term for murder, subject to remand credit, and a concurrent six-month sentence for theft.