R v Reece Martin Kelly

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, the Court of Appeal will grant an extension of time only where the proposed appeal has sufficient merit to justify it. For murder, the sentencing judge must impose life imprisonment and may determine the minimum term by making appropriate findings of fact not resolved by the jury’s verdict. The court assesses the totality of the criminality on the indictment, including concurrent terms for related offences. Relevant aggravating features may include the victim’s particular vulnerability, earlier assaults for which the offender is responsible, and offending after consuming illegal drugs. Lack of intent to kill, lack of premeditation and a belated admission may mitigate sentence. A sentence is not arguable merely because one component is challenged when the total sentence is not manifestly excessive.

After a jury trial before Dove J at the Crown Court at Carlisle, the applicant was convicted of murdering his infant son and of two counts of child cruelty. He had pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but that plea was not accepted. He received life imprisonment with a minimum term initially set at 18 years, together with sentences of seven years and six months for the child-cruelty counts. The murder sentence was later amended under the slip rule to a minimum term of 17 years and 23 days.

The applicant’s renewed application challenged the sentence for one child-cruelty count and repeated matters relating to conviction. The central issue was whether any arguable ground showed that the overall sentence, including the minimum term for murder, was manifestly excessive, and whether an extension of time should be granted.

1. Application dismissed. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was out of time and no extension was granted because there was no merit in the proposed appeal.
2. The sentencing judge was required to impose life imprisonment for murder. In fixing the minimum term, it was proper to consider the totality of the applicant’s criminality on the indictment and to impose shorter sentences for the child-cruelty offences.
3. The judge was entitled to make appropriate findings of fact not resolved by the jury’s verdicts. The aggravating features properly identified included the infant’s particular vulnerability and dependence on the applicant, earlier assaults for which the applicant was responsible, and offending after consuming illegal drugs. The lack of intent to kill, lack of premeditation and belated admission of unlawful killing were properly treated as mitigating factors.
4. The starting point under Sentencing Act 2020, Schedule 21, was 15 years. The court found no arguable basis for contending that the minimum term of 18 years, considered in the round and taking account of the related offences, was excessive, still less manifestly so. The seven-year sentence for child cruelty was within the category B1 range.
5. The court agreed with the Single Judge’s reasons. Although the application was significantly out of time, an extension would have been considered if any real merit had been shown.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed; extension of time refused.
• Crown Court at Carlisle: following conviction after trial, Dove J imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term and concurrent or consecutive sentences for child cruelty; the murder sentence was later amended under the slip rule.