Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 1160 (QB)
Case No: 2004/799/MTR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 12/06/2008
Before :
MR. JUSTICE TEARE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
REGINA
- and -
LEON PAUL AMOS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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
The Honourable Mr. Justice Teare:
1. This is an application under Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 by Leon Paul Amos (the applicant).
2. On 20 February 2001 the applicant, having been convicted of murder, was sentenced to life imprisonment. On 22 April 2002 the Home Secretary set the period to be served to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence at 20 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 (18 years) and the Lord Chief Justice (20 years) and (iii) the representations made on behalf of the applicant. I have also had regard to representations made by the victim's father.
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.
6. The applicant was born on 6 October 1964 and so was 36 at the time of conviction and sentence. The offence of murder of which he was convicted was committed on 9 May 2000.
7. The murder was described by the trial judge in his report to the Home Secretary as follows. The applicant, armed with a kitchen knife, was seen in various parts of Watford and in particular the Meriden Park area. In his sentencing remarks the judge said that the applicant had set out with rape or murder or both in mind. The applicant stalked one woman who was not harmed because other people were present. He then ambushed the victim who was walking her dog. She was nervous of being attacked and carried a small lock knife. She succeeded in opening it and sustained a severe defence wound to her left hand (she was left handed). The applicant stabbed her once; the knife penetrated her heart, aorta and lung. He left here dying. He took her knife and her mobile telephone.
8. Although a knife and phone were taken from the victim I do not consider that this murder was done for gain. Although the judge said that the applicant might have had rape in mind the murder did not in the event involve sexual conduct; or at any rate I cannot be sure it did. Therefore, since this murder does not fall within paragraphs 4 or 5 of Schedule 21, the starting point must be 15 years.
9. I have to consider whether there are any aggravating features pursuant to paragraph 10 of Schedule 21. There plainly are. There was a significant degree of planning or premeditation. The applicant had set out with a knife with either rape or murder or both in mind. He had earlier stalked another woman. As the father of the victim has said, the applicant “went out armed with a knife, walked round all afternoon looking for a victim.” The applicant had a previous conviction for rape and for aggravated burglary which involved holding a woman at knifepoint with rape of her or her daughter in mind.
10. There were no mitigating features pursuant to paragraph 11 of Schedule 21. It has been submitted on the applicant's behalf that there was no premeditation and that the murder occurred spontaneously. But this is unrealistic and inconsistent with the trial judge's view. It is also said that the applicant feels a deep sense of remorse. It is not clear what the evidential basis for this submission. But if there is remorse it is wholly outweighed by the aggravating features of the offence.
11. Having considered these matters I have concluded that, applying the general principles in Schedule 21 of the CJA 2003, the minimum period to be served would be 24 years.
12. The trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice each recommended 18 and 20 years respectively. But they did not assess the seriousness of the offence with regard to the general principles set out in Schedule 21 of the CJA 2003. However, I cannot specify as the part of the sentence to be served before the early release provisions apply a term longer than the minimum term notified by the Home Secretary, namely, 20 years.
13. The submissions made on behalf of the applicant refer to his progress in prison and the courses he has passed. In order to be taken into account such progress must usually be exceptional; see R v Caines [2006] EWCA 2915 and R v West [2008] EWCA 965. His progress is not so exceptional as to have any significant effect on the minimum period to be served.
14. I therefore specify as the part of the sentence to be served before the early release provisions apply as 20 years less 9 months 11 months.