R v Owen Richard Blades

When fixing a minimum term for murder, the court may move materially above the Sentencing Code starting point where the offending involves prior arming with multiple weapons, a sustained attack, serious associated offending, relevant previous convictions and recent release on licence. Totality requires the sentence to reflect the overall criminality, including a separate attack on a worker. Psychiatric evidence merits limited mitigation where it shows no impairment of understanding or self-control and no meaningful connection with the offending. A defendant may await psychiatric evidence before pleading, but a defendant who does not accept responsibility for the killing and puts the prosecution to proof until the last moment may receive only limited guilty-plea credit.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Lincoln to murder, wounding with intent, possessing an offensive weapon, burglary and theft. He received a life sentence with a minimum term of 34 years and 195 days, together with concurrent sentences for the other offences. With leave, he appealed against the murder minimum term, arguing that the increase from the 25-year starting point was excessive and that greater credit should have been given for his guilty plea, entered after psychiatric evidence had addressed diminished responsibility. During preparation of the appeal, the Registrar identified that the low-value shoplifting offence had been improperly included in the indictment.

1. Disposition. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The theft count had been improperly included in the indictment. The guilty plea was therefore a nullity; the conviction was quashed, the prosecution offered no evidence, and a not guilty verdict was entered.
2. Minimum term. The minimum term was severe but not manifestly excessive. The 25-year starting point under Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Code was properly increased. The appellant had armed himself with more than one knife shortly after release, had carried the weapons and used them to inflict serious injury and death. The murder involved at least 18 knife blows against an older and defenceless man in his own home, with evidence of planning, premeditation and vulnerability. The sentence also had to reflect totality, including the attack on a shop worker, and the appellant’s lengthy and relevant history of violent offending and recent release on licence.
3. Psychiatric evidence. The autism spectrum condition and substance dependency were the sole mitigating features. They could carry little weight because the psychiatric evidence showed no impairment of the appellant’s understanding, rational judgment or self-control. The evidence indicated that the offending and the medical condition were practically unrelated.
4. Guilty plea credit. The appellant was entitled to await the psychiatric report before deciding whether diminished responsibility was available. However, he had not accepted responsibility for the killing and had put the prosecution to proof of that issue until the last moment. He could instead have admitted the killing while reserving the question whether the offence was murder or manslaughter. The judge was therefore entitled to limit credit to five per cent. The minimum term of 34 years and 195 days stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against the murder minimum term was dismissed. The theft conviction was quashed as a nullity and a not guilty verdict was entered: [2026] EWCA Crim 663.
• Crown Court at Lincoln: The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 34 years and 195 days, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.