Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Case No: 2004/141/MTS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
[2006]EWHC 1554 (QB)
Date_10th July, 2006_
Before:
THE HON. MR. JUSTICE MCKINNON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Criminal Justice Act, 2003, Schedule 22
Judge's Order under Section 269
--------------------------------------------------
R E G I N A
-v-
TOMAS WILLIAM ARCHER
McKinnon, J:
D EC I S I O N
1. I am required by section 269 (3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to set such minimum term as I consider appropriate taking into account the seriousness of the offence. In arriving at that minimum term, there are four steps which I am required to take as the murder here was committed before 18th December 2003.
2. The facts are taken from the report of the trial judge, Mr. Justice Turner to the Home Secretary. The deceased, Nicholas Shannon, was a 49 year old homosexual who had had a relationship (non-sexual) with the defendant Archer in the past. The relationship had ended sometime before the death but the defendant was still a frequent visitor to Shannon's flat. In the early hours of Saturday 24th March 2001 the defendant and his co-defendant Butt, both plainly under the influence of alcohol and very short of money decided to call first on the deceased's neighbour and then upon the deceased. It is clear that they entered the deceased's flat. Not having seen the deceased for several days, a neighbour called the police. On entering his flat they discovered Shannon lying naked and dead on his bed. He had been repeatedly stabbed in the chest with a knife. In addition there were five superficial cuts round the base of his throat extending round half its circumference. Both defendants were traced by means of CCTV footage which showed them with items removed from the deceased's flat. The offence was probably committed on the spur of the moment when the deceased refused to reveal the whereabouts of his store of money. The co-defendant was found to be the instigator of the offence and to have used the knife around the base of the deceased's throat.
3. The first step is to choose one of three starting points, whole life, 30 years or 15 years. In my judgment, it is appropriate to take the starting point of 15 years. That is because this case falls within the category of an offence, the seriousness of which is neither exceptionally high nor particularly high within paragraphs 4 (1) or 5 (2) of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
4. The second step is take account of any aggravating or mitigating factors which would justify a departure from the starting point of 15 years. The aggravating features are participating in the use of a carving or kitchen knife to stab his former friend for the purpose of robbery.
The mitigating features are his relative youth, a broken childhood and his probably being overborne by his co-defendant's will, according to the trial judge.
I would not increase the starting point by reason of the aggravating feature but would reduce it by 3 years by reason of the mitigating features thus arriving at 12 years. Thus, the starting point is 12 years.
5. The third step is to deduct from the starting point of 12 years the precise time that the defendant spent on remand in custody. That is 7 months and 5 days. So, in broad terms, (not being entirely precise) I arrive at a proposed minimum term in the region of 11 years.
6. The fourth step is to check whether that proposed term is greater than the term which the Secretary of State would probably have notified under the practice followed by the Secretary of State before December 2002. Where, as here, the murder was committed before 31st May 2002, the best guide as to what would have been the practice of the Secretary of State is the letter sent to judges by Lord Bingham, CJ on 10th February 1997. Following the practice of Lord Bingham, I take as the first step the period actually to be served for the “average”, “normal” or “unexceptional” murder as 14 years. The next and final step is to look at the factors capable of mitigating the normal penalty and the factors likely to call for a sentence more severe than the norm. Here, the aggravating and mitigating factors are as set out in paragraph 4 above. As before, I deduct 3 years. I therefore arrive at a minimum term of 11 years.
7. Accordingly, I set the minimum term that the defendant must serve before the Parole Board can consider his release on licence as one of 11 years. That is the recommendation made by both the trial judge and the Lord Chief justice. It is a recommendation that I agree with. That minimum term is the minimum amount of time the defendant will spend in prison, from the date of sentence, before the Parole Board can order early release. If it remains necessary for the protection of the public, the defendant will continue to be detained after that date. Where the defendant has served the minimum term and the Parole Board has decided to direct release, the defendant will remain on licence for the rest of his life and may be recalled to prison at any time.