Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Case No: 2004/734/735/MTS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Neutral Citation: 2963QB
Courts of Justice
Crown Square, Manchester M3 3FL
Date: 7th December 2006
Before:
MR. JUSTICE HENRIQUES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Application by DIDAR SINGH BAINS & ASSAD KHAN for the setting of a minimum term pursuant to Schedule 22, paragraph 6, 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
The Hon Mr Justice Henriques
I am required to set the minimum terms of two Mandatory Life Sentences pursuant to Schedule 22 paragraph 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
On the 4th of December 2004 the applicants Didar Singh Bains born on the 16th of June 1942 and Assad Khan born on the 17th of April 1981 were both sentenced by His Honour Judge Forrester to Life Imprisonment. He recommended that each should serve a minimum term of 18 years.
I have before me written submissions submitted on behalf of each applicant. The deceased's family have declined contact with the Victim's Support service.
The facts are as follows:
In the early hours of the 21st of November 2001 petrol was poured through the letterbox of a house in Hounslow and set alight. The owner and occupier of the house, a Mrs Johal, was fatally injured in the fire and died six days later. The Crowns case was that Khan started the fire having been incited so to do so by Bains. The alleged background was that Bains and the deceased had been lovers. The Judge concluded it was in effect a contract killing.
It is submitted on behalf of Bains that the period of 18 years is excessive. It is submitted that this was not a 'contract killing in the usual sense of the term'. It is submitted that the term failed to reflect the age of the applicant, his intoxication and the applicant's frustration by his perceived infidelities of the deceased. It is submitted this was a normal case of murder.
In Khan's case it is submitted that his heroin addiction should mitigate the term he having been driven to commit the crime to obtain £200 to obtain more drugs. His youth and absence of relevant previous convictions should mitigate the term.
The argument that this was not a contract killing simply cannot be sustained. The prosecution witness had heard Bains offering another man £200 to set fire to Mrs Johal's house. Whilst Khan could not be described as a sophisticated contract killer he nevertheless was paid and accepted money to carry out a killing. In Bains case he had recruited a young drug addict to carry out a killing. I do not consider the intoxication of Bains to be mitigation. Lord Bingham in his letter of 10th of February 1997 described intoxication as a factor as being at best neutral. Bains (according to Dr Johns psychiatric report) had a history of abusive and threatening behaviour when drunk including aggression towards the deceased, smashing her windows on two occasions and indecently assaulting her on another. He was mildly depressed but showed no signs of material mental illness. I regard the element of intoxication as neutral and thus it does not mitigate the minimum term
As to the deceased's infidelity or the applicant's perception of her infidelity again I do not regard this as mitigating the norm in a case in which the killing was unquestionably premeditated. This was a murder conceived in anger with vindictive motivation Bains blaming the deceased for his arrest and a night in custody. The age of the applicant Bains is however a factor which the Judge may possibly have overlooked. He was 60 at the time of the killing and accordingly would be seventy eight upon completing the minimum term as recommended. Age is a consideration where relevant to physical capacity on release or the likelihood of the defendant dying in prison. On the most positive view this applicant will be an old man on release.
I take the norm prevailing at the time of this offence (Lord Bingham's letter) at 14 years. This was a planned revenge contract killing. It was premeditated. An impecunious drug addict was recruited. This applicant was the prime mover. It was potentially a double killing – the lodger having to leap from a window. I bear in mind the age of the deceased and that he will be old on release. I reject his intoxication and perception of infidelity as mitigating factors.
I fix his minimum term at 17 years less time spent in custody. I would reach the same figure with a starting norm of 12 years (it is open to a Judge to come to exactly the same decision irrespective of which guidance is followed).
Turning to Assad Khan's case it is highly relevant that he was 20 at the time of the offence and recruited by a friend of his father (Bains) to commit this offence. He was an impecunious heroin addict seduced by the offer of £200. It can in my judgment properly be asserted that his co-accused took advantage of him. He has no relevant convictions. On the other hand this was a contract killing, premeditated in which a second life may well have been taken. I would fix the minimum term in this applicant's case at 15 years and would reach the same conclusion under either Lord Bingham's guidance the subsequent practice direction.
In Bains case the minimum term is 17 years less 12 months and 9 days spent in custody.
In Khan's case the minimum term is 15 years less 8 months and 26 days spent in custody.