Minimum Terms
Minimum terms set for young offenders by the Lord Chief Justice
03/04/03
10.30am
Court 4
Royal Courts of Justice
The decision of the Lord Chief Justice on minimum term in the case of Dennis David Hamilton in accordance with the Practice Direction dated 27th July, 2000 (The Times 9th August, 2000)
1. Dennis David Hamilton was convicted of murder on 3 February 1999 in the Teeside Crown Court. He was ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.
2. The offence was committed on 30 September 1997 when Mr Hamilton was 17 years old.
3. The facts of the offence are taken from the Trial Judge's report to the Home Secretary dated 9 February 1999.
4. On about 20 September 1997 Mr Hamilton was without anywhere to stay. Mrs Sharon Metcalf (the “victim”) allowed Mr Hamilton, who was friendly with her son, Richard Metcalf, to stay at their family home at 25 Wilson Avenue. On 29 September 1997 Mr Hamilton was asked to leave because he was suspected of stealing.
5. On 30 September Mr Hamilton spent the day drinking and smoking cannabis. At about 8pm he went to a tent pitched in the garden of 25 Wilson Avenue with two friends. At about 10.15pm after his friends had left, Mr Hamilton entered the house at 25 Wilson Avenue. It would appear that he searched the bedroom of Richard Metcalf, who was asleep in the room, and may have taken an air rifle and case. Mr Hamilton then went downstairs and may have been surprised by the presence of the victim. Mr Hamilton attacked the victim with three knives obtained from the kitchen. The victim received 65 knife wounds to her head, neck and upper body. Richard Metcalf was woken by his mother's cries for help. Mr Hamilton told Richard Metcalf that he was not responsible for the attack and that the assailant had run from the house and was in the street. Mr Hamilton returned to the house some time later to return the stolen air rifle and hide the knives.
6. Throughout six police interviews between 1 October 1997 and 3 October 1997 Mr Hamilton denied he had anything to do with the murder. He pleaded not guilty but on 2 February 1999, the seventh day of his trial, Mr Hamilton changed his plea to guilty.
7. The Trial Judge, Mr Justice Bennett recommended Mr Hamilton's tariff be set at 17 years. The Trial Judge commented that Mr Hamilton's actions and the evidence of witnesses did not suggest that drink and/or drugs had much effect on Mr Hamilton at the time of the attack. The Trial Judge stated that:
“The degree and nature of the violence speaks for itself. His plea on the 7th day of the trial was a very belated recognition of the inevitable – the evidence was overwhelming. … Thus, in my opinion, the circumstances of the offence were such that he must pose a considerable risk in the future. He will require the most careful monitoring before release.”
8. On 10 February 1999 the Lord Chief Justice recommended Mr Hamilton's tariff be set at 13-14 years.
Lord Bingham CJ stated:
“There appears to have been no real motive for this killing, which adds force to the judge's closing observation. But I think the offender's youth, and his eventual if belated acceptance of responsibility, should mitigate the term he should serve for purposes of retribution and general deterrence.”
9. In December 2001 the tariff was set at 13 years.
10. The HMP & YOI Moorland HM Prison Service Annual Review of Mr Hamilton dated 11 June 2001 indicates that while Mr Hamilton accepts responsibility for the murder, his recollection of committing the actual offence is sporadic. He exhibits empathy but work is required to bring out his true feelings. Mr Hamilton has attended the Lifer Group, a Drug and Alcohol Awareness course and is involved in continuing education, specifically in business studies and hairskills. He receives regular visits from his mother and girlfriend. The Report indicates that Mr Hamilton needs to explore his excessive use of violence and holds back when discussing sensitive aspects of his offending.
11. A report of M McKinney, a Higher Psychologist, dated 14 December 2000 states that at the date of the report Mr Hamilton was able to discuss the details surrounding the offence but was still confused by and unable to clearly recollect the attack itself. It is stated that this could indicate that Mr Hamilton has difficulty fully coming to terms with his offending. The report states that Mr Hamilton found it difficult to describe his thinking and emotions. The version of events outlined in the Report as presented by Mr Hamilton is not entirely consistent with those found by the Trial Judge. Mr Hamilton appears to have accepted only limited responsibility, remorse and empathy for what happened. The Report also states that Mr Hamilton has demonstrated only limited insight into his offending behaviour.
12. I have also read a number of Life Governor's F75 Allocation Reports, Probation Department Reports, additional Psychologists Reports, a Medical Officer Report, Chaplin's Reports and an R&R Course Report prepared in relation to Mr Hamilton. I have taken account of all of these reports in reaching my decision.
13. Tuckers Solicitors, by way of a letter dated 12 June 2002, made representations on Mr Hamilton's behalf.
14. These representations draw particular attention to Mr Hamilton's youth at the time of the offence, his acceptance of responsibility and his willingness to engage in work to change himself since the conviction. They state that:
Mr Hamilton is deeply remorseful;
he had no previous convictions of a violent nature and at the time of the offending was young, living away from home for the first time, more or less homeless and drinking and taking drugs on a daily basis;
although as found by the Trial Judge alcohol and drugs may have had little physical effect upon Mr Hamilton, they may have influenced his ability to think rationally in a moment of panic;
Mr Hamilton entered the home with no intent to cause harm and panicked when confronted by the victim;
he has completed a number of courses while in prison including anger management, alcohol and drugs, reasoning and rehabilitation and victim awareness and empathy; and
he has not had any adjudications for violence of any nature since being in prison, has willingly placed himself on voluntary drug testing and has tried with some success to re-establish his relationship with his family.
15. Representations made by the victim's family are recorded in a report of A Proud, Chief Superintendent of the Durham Constabulary, dated 20 August 2002. The victim's family is of the opinion that Mr Hamilton should serve a considerable period of imprisonment for what was a horrendous attack on a small, defenceless and innocent woman.
16. Karl Metcalf is one of the two sons of the victim. He states that Mr Hamilton was mature when he committed the offence. He draws attention to the horrific nature of the attack and the mutilation that his mother suffered. Karl Metcalf states that prior to committing the offence Mr Hamilton had been a violent bully who intimidated people, was known to always carry a knife and had committed a number of robberies involving threatening or prodding the victim with a knife. Karl Metcalf states that some years before his Mother's murder he had been badly beaten and his nose was broken by Mr Hamilton. He states that if Mr Hamilton were released from custody it would not be long before he resumed his violent ways.
17. David Metcalf (who is incorrectly referred to as David Hamilton in the report) concurs with the views expressed by his son Karl Metcalf. He adds that if Mr Hamilton were ever returned to the area he would have to kill him as his son Richard Metcalf “would kill Hamilton if he got his hands on him first [and] … he would have to do the deed to save his son going to prison.” David Metcalf said that Mr Hamilton had never been a good person, will never change and if he were to be released would be a real danger to the public. He said that Mr Hamilton had never been in touch with the victim's family to apologise and has never shown any remorse. A letter by David Metcalf dated 12 September 2002 has also been read and taken into consideration.
18. The five sisters of the victim and the victim's niece also made representations on behalf of themselves and the victim's brother. They said that they are unable to come to terms with the brutality and mutilation which the victim suffered, are still disturbed by the circumstances of the murder and what happened in court, and will suffer as a result of the offence for the rest of their lives. They believe any remorse that may have been or will be shown by Mr Hamilton will be false. They are concerned that Mr Hamilton will continue to be a danger to the public if he should ever be released into the wider community and feel that Mr Hamilton on release would be in grave danger from the victim's sons and other members of the community.
19. I have taken the views of the victim's family into account in reaching my decision.
20. There is no reason to alter the minimum period of 13 year set by the Secretary of State.