Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 2861 (QB)
Case No: 2004/953/MTR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 23/11/2006
Before :
MR JUSTICE DAVIS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
REGINA CROWN
- and -
DEAN CHRISTOPHER SAUNDERS Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
.............................
MR JUSTICE DAVIS
Davis J. :
1. The applicant, on a change of plea, at a retrial, pleaded guilty to a count of Murder at the Crown Court at Leicester on 22nd July 1996. The tariff recommended by the Judge was one of 14 years imprisonment. That was also the recommendation of the then Lord Chief Justice. The minimum term notified by the Home Secretary was 15 years.
2. The applicant was born on 5th October 1974. The brief facts of the offence were that on 27th May 1995 he engaged in a revenge attack on the flat where a man called Stedman lived. This attack involved the use of a scaffold tube and an extinguisher from which petrol was sprayed into all the rooms. During the attack Stedman was knocked to the floor where he was also then sprayed with petrol. On leaving the applicant deliberately set fire to a pool of petrol in the entrance: this caused the petrol to ignite throughout the premises, and the clothes of Stedman then were ignited. It appeared that the revenge was in fact intended for the fellow occupant of the flat, who it seemed had caused a good deal of trouble. The brother of the applicant was also involved.
3. The Judge considered that the attack on the flat was planned, albeit there was no original intent to set fire to it deliberately: although fire was an almost certain consequence of what was done, the decision to start the fire was, the Judge concluded, taken at the last minute. This view the Home Secretary did not share, noting that Stedman had been sprayed with petrol in a state of some panic. The trial Judge doubted that the applicant represented a serious risk of violence in reoffending: the Judge thought that the applicant changed his plea due to family pressure to save his brother from the risk of conviction for murder (the brother in due course pleaded guilty to manslaughter).
4. The applicant had a very poor criminal record, but mainly for offences of dishonesty and vehicle taking.
5. Since this murder was committed in 1995, I have to apply the provisions of Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I have had regard to the provisions of the consolidated Practice Direction, Part IV, in particular at paragraph 49.14-21. I have considered the detailed representations submitted on behalf of the applicant.
6. It seems to me that the trial Judge was entitled to conclude that, while the attack on the flat had been planned, it had not originally been planned to burn the occupants. The fact remains that, when at the last minute the applicant did so intend, he proceeded to spray the luckless occupant with petrol. This was a very serious, indeed horrific, offence. However, I must also bear in mind the relative youth of the applicant at the time and his lack of previous convictions for offences of violence. The plea also seems to me to be of significance – it is a big thing to plead to murder. I also take into account the seemingly commendable conduct and approach of the applicant whilst in prison, as well as his current personal circumstances.
7. Having regard to the circumstances of this case and to considerations of retribution and general deterrence, I specify the minimum term to be served before the applicant be considered for release on licence as one of 14 years: from which is then to be deducted 9 months 8 days representing time spent in custody on remand.