The appellants had been convicted of a murder. They appealed against the minumum sentences as set, saying that the application of the 2003 Act produced an unfair result. The murder was of the wife of the second defendant who paid the first to assist.
Held: The murder was brutal and planned and involved an abduction. The court had taken as a starting point 30 years for one defendant and 15 for the other. The schedule provided for a whole life order where the seriousness was exceptionally high. The provisions are not to be applied inflexibly. It was wrong that there should be such a difference in starting points. The judge had erred in not concluding that the seriousness of a case could be exceptionally high even if the statutory criteria were not met. The starting point for each should have been 30 years, but in the first defendant’s case the minimum should be reduced to 22 years. Orders accordingly.
The statute does not create a sentencing straightjacket, nor require that a mechanical or arithmetical approach to the problem of the assessment of the minimum term may be taken: ‘We have lost count of the number of times when this court has emphasised that these provisions are not intended to be applied inflexibly. Indeed, in our judgment, an inflexible approach would be inconsistent with the terms of the statutory framework. No scheme or guidance or statutory framework can be fully comprehensive, and any system of purported compartmentalisation or prescription has the potential to induce injustice. Even when the approach to the sentencing decision is laid down in an apparently detailed, and on the face of it, intentionally comprehensive scheme, the sentencing judge must achieve a just result’.
Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Thomas, Lord Justice Leveson, Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Christopher Clarke
[2008] EWCA Crim 2500, [2009] 1 Cr App R(S) 117
Bailii, Times
Criminal Justice Act 2003 269 sch269
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Herbert and Others, Regina v CACD 29-Oct-2008
The defendants appealed their sentences for murder and grievous bodily harm. Each was sentenced with minimum periods set under section 216 of the 2003 Act. Five youths (including the defendants) had severely beaten up a young man, and when his . .
Applied – Sanchez, Regina v CACD 5-Dec-2008
The defendant appealed her conviction for murder as aider and abettor, and the crown appealed against her sentence of 3 years.
Held: The criticisms of the trial were not established. The defendant’s appeal failed. The judge had failed to . .
Cited – Oakes and Others v Regina CACD 21-Nov-2012
A specially constituted CACD heard sentencing appeals for defendants serving life terms for very grave crimes, and in particular, the judicial assessment of the minimum term to be served by the appellants for the purposes of punishment and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.277322