Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 1898 (QB)
Case No: 2004/889/MTR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 23/08/2007
Before :
MR. JUSTICE TEARE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
REGINA Claimant
- and -
LEROY ALEXANDER ATKINSON Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
.............................
MR. JUSTICE TEARE
Mr. Justice Teare :
1. This is an application under Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 by Leroy Alexander Atkinson (the applicant).
2. On 29 January 1998 applicant, having been convicted of murder, was sentenced to life imprisonment. On 30 October 1998 the Home Secretary set the period to be served to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence at 15 years (“the minimum term”).
3. The applicant is an “existing prisoner” within the meaning of Schedule 22 of the CJA 2003 and has made an application under paragraph 3 of that Schedule. My task is to specify that part of his sentence which the applicant must serve before the early release provisions will apply to him. The specified part of his sentence cannot however be longer that the minimum term notified to him by the Secretary of State.
4. In considering this matter I must have regard to the seriousness of the offence and in doing so I have had had regard to (i) the general principles set out in Schedule 21, (ii) the recommendations made by the trial judge (15 years) and the Lord Chief Justice (15 years), (iii) the representations made by the applicant and by relatives of the victim and (iv) the various reports leading to the applicant being re-categorised as a Category C prisoner.
5. I am also required to have regard to the effect that section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 would have had if the applicant had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, provided that I am satisfied that, if he had been so sentenced, the length of his sentence would have been treated as reduced by a particular period under that section: therefore the court takes account of any period that a person has spent in custody only because he was committed to custody by an order of the court made in connection with proceedings relating to the offence of murder of which has been convicted. I am satisfied that in the present case I should have had regard to a period spent in custody by the applicant of 9 months and 12 days.
6. The applicant was born on 12 December 1950 and so was 48 at the time of conviction and sentence. The offence of murder for which he was convicted and sentences was committed at about midnight on 11/12 April 1997.
7. The murder was described by the trial judge in his report to the Home Secretary as follows. The applicant and the co-defendant were respectively the brother and wife of the deceased. Although there was evidence that they had had an affair and there were indications that the attack on the deceased was premeditated the prosecution accepted the possibility that they had lost their tempers during an argument with the deceased. (The Representations on behalf of the applicant say that the argument concerned a disputed contribution to the funeral costs of the mother of the deceased and applicant.) They both used a knife and inflicted 36 wounds on the deceased of which 17 were to the face, neck, trunk and arms. One would have paralysed the deceased from the neck down. When the deceased was either paralysed or unconscious his neck was repeatedly cut. The judge described the attack as savage and prolonged and the murder as a particularly brutal one.
8. The judge also said that the family of the deceased was devastated. This is borne out by the statements from the family which I have read.
9. Since this case does not fall within paragraphs 4(1) or 5(1) of Schedule 21 the starting point for assessing the minimum period to be served is 15 years.
10. This murder was savage and brutal. The number of wounds inflicted indicates that it was preceded by violence which would have caused physical suffering by the deceased before his death. This is an aggravating feature pursuant to paragraph 10 of Schedule 21.
11. In view of the trial judge's comments I should proceed on the basis that there was a lack of premeditation. This is a mitigating factor.
12. Balancing these factors leads me to the conclusion that, applying the general principles in Schedule 21 of the CJA 2003, the minimum period to be served would be 16 years. The recommendations of the trial judge and Lord Chief Justice were for the lesser period of 15 years. However, those recommendations were made long before the passing of the CJA 2003. In any event the court cannot specify as the part of the sentence to be served before the early release provisions apply a part of the sentence longer than the minimum period notified to the applicant by the Home Secretary, which was 15 years.
13. The Representations on behalf of the applicant recount the applicant's progress in prison and submit that he has made exceptional progress. I further note that on 13 July 2006 the applicant was re-categorised as a Category C prisoner. The conduct of the applicant in prison can have little if any effect on the seriousness of the offence. If it is exceptional it is possible that it may have some effect on the minimum term. In the present case, if the applicant's progress were to be regarded as exceptional, I would not reduce the minimum term to be served to less than 15 years. His progress will be considered by the Parole Board after he has served the minimum term.
14. I therefore specify as the part of the sentence to be served before the early release provisions apply as 15 years less 9 months 12 days.