Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 1734 (QB)
Case No: 2004/876/MTR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 14th July 2006
Before :
THE HON MR. JUSTICE HOLLAND
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Application by Behari Lal Bangher for the setting of a minimum term pursuant to Schedule 22, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Decision
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A paragraph 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this decision and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. Justice Holland:
1. Behari Lal Bangher is an existing prisoner (see Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 22, paragraph 1) who makes an application to the High Court pursuant to paragraph 3 for an order with respect to the early release provisions.
2. The essential chronology is as follows:
a. 5th May 1993. He is convicted of the murder of Gian Chand and sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial Judge recommended a minimum term of 18 years; the then Lord Chief Justice (Lord Taylor) recommended 16 years.
b. 30th March 1994. The Secretary of State notified a 16 year tariff.
3. By paragraph 4 I am now required to have regard to:
a. The seriousness of the offence taking into account the general principles set out in Schedule 21 and the recommendations made to the Secretary of State;
b. The scope accorded by Section 67 Criminal Justice Act 1967 for giving credit for time spent in custody on remand for the offence;
c. The length of the notified minimum term.
4. As to the seriousness of the offence, the essential facts are as follows. There was a longstanding feud between the Applicant and the victim: in February 1991, both were bound over to keep the peace and in August 1991 the Applicant fought with the victim so as to be convicted of affray. On the night in question after a drinking session the Applicant fetched his sawn off shotgun and four cartridges. Thereafter in a car driven by a friend he followed the victim then working as a taxi driver. When the latter went to the entrance of a house the Applicant followed him and fired twice. One shot missed; one shot inflicted fatal injuries to the chest. The Police subsequently recovered the gun as directed by the Applicant.
5. The Applicant's date of birth is the 3rd October 1953. He had previous convictions, principally that for affray in respect of which there had been a probation order. The trial Judge commented “The Defendant had bought the sawn off shot gun some months earlier, almost certainly as a weapon with which to kill Chand. On the night of the murder he went home to collect the gun before going in search of Chand. When he met him he killed in cold blood – without any preliminary talk or any form of provocation from Chand. He showed no remorse at all.”
6. Turning to my task by way of response to this application, I am not empowered to make an order the effect of which would be to increase the minimum term as notified by the Secretary of State; the issue for me is as to whether it should be reduced. As to this, contentions are advanced on behalf of the Applicant to the effect that the minimum term as notified does not fairly reflect the degree of provocation on the part of the victim and the present remorse. Yet further it is contended that the real progress made by the Applicant when in prison constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying a discount. These representations are supplemented by the Applicant's own letter of the 10th May 2005 which commands respect.
7. There is in response a moving Victim Personal Statement adamantly opposing any further reduction.
8. Turning to the merits, by reference to Schedule 21 the current starting point for the purposes of determining the minimum term, given that the murder involved the deliberate use of a specially adapted firearm, is 30 years. Manifestly none of the points currently raised could serve to give me a justification to reduce the minimum term to below the current 16 years (that is, by way of discount of at least 50%), save by way of credit for the time spent in custody on remand. The minimum term for the purpose of the early release provisions thus becomes 16 years less 300 days, 15 years and 65 days.