Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 1310 (QB)
Case No: 2004/158/MTS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 31/07/2006
Before:
MR JUSTICE DAVIS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
REGINA Crown
- and -
KHURRAM ABBAS Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Davis J. :
1. The Defendant (a man born on 26th Feb 1978) was convicted after a trial at the Central Criminal Court on two counts of murder. He was sentenced on 20th December 2001 to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. The trial judge’s recommended sentencing tariff was 18 years: which was also recommended by the then Lord Chief Justice.
2. The murders were committed on 16th July 2000. In reviewing the matter (under the provisions of Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) I have had regard to the Practice Direction set out in Archbold (2006 ed) 5.251, especially paragraphs IV.49.14-21.
3. I have had regard to all the papers put before me, including the victim’s family statement. The Defendant has made no representations.
4. The facts, in summary, are these:
4.1. The Defendant, and his co-accused, (Jahanzeb Ahmet) went to a flat occupied by a man called Lionel Pinto. A woman friend of Mr Pinto, Susan Collings, was also present in the flat at the time.
4.2. The two victims were then stabbed to death, in a vicious and prolonged attack: Mr Pinto suffered 25 wounds, Ms Collings 50 wounds. In addition her face and hands were bound with masking tape: it may have been that she was killed because she had witnessed the killing of the man.
4.3. The motive was unclear. It seemed that there was dissatisfaction over a car purchased by the Defendant from Mr Pinto. It seems the two went to the flat for that reason and violence thereafter erupted. The Judge thought that Ms Collings was killed because she happened to be there.
4.4. At the trial, the Defendant sought to cast the blame on his co-accused Ahmet.
5. The co-accused was 15 at the time but assessed as being “streetwise and calculating”. The tariff period in his case was set at 16 years (later reduced to 13 years on appeal, essentially by reason of age). The Defendant was 22 at the time, but had no previous convictions.
6. In my view there were very significant aggravating features here: there were two murders on the same occasion and a knife was used. The attacks were, as the trial judge noted, sustained and particularly vicious (the trial Judge described the murders as “evil and horrific”): and the woman was also bound and, in effect, tortured. The Defendant was significantly the older of the two attackers (albeit of previous good character) and there could be no mitigation for a plea, the trial having been contested.
7. I have to decide the minimum term to be served, having regard to all the circumstances and considerations of retribution and general deterrence, as well as to the practice as set out in Lord Bingham’s statement of 10th February 1997 (if the matter were to be the subject of a sentence under the law now in force, the sentence probably would have been considerably longer than 18 years).
8. I think I am bound to bear in mind that the minimum term of 16 years recommended by the trial Judge in the case of Ahmet was reduced by the Court of Appeal to 13 years. Clearly there would have been a lower starting point for Ahmet, just because of his age – a consideration which does not apply to the Defendant. Even so, I think that (some) reduction is in consequence appropriate for the Defendant, having regard to considerations of parity. I would not have departed from the recommendation on any other basis.
9. In the circumstances, the minimum term which I specify is one of 17 years: from which is to be deducted the time spent on remand in custody of 1 year, 3 months 28 days.