Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: 2006 EWHC 3246 (QB)
Case No: 2004/354-357/MTS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 21 December 2006
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ROYCE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
Regina
- v -
(1) Anthony Leonard Cole
(2) Stephen Murray
(3) Evard Jermain Hamilton
(4) Winston Harris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Justice Royce :
1. Winston Harris was born on 27th December 1960. Stephen Murray was born 1st May 1973. Evard Jermaine Hamilton was born on 3rd March 1977. Leonard Anthony Cole was born on 16th May 1972. On 22nd February 2000 they were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by His Honour Judge Beaumont QC at the Central Criminal Court.
2. Under schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the case of each requires determination of the minimum term he must serve before the early release provisions of section 28 (5) to (8) of the Crime Sentences Act 1997 can apply.
The facts
3. The defendants are all Jamaican. They were members of the “Lock City Crew”, a gang which frequented a local authority sports centre in Harlesden which they regarded as their “territory”. On Saturday 1st May 1999 believing that their territory was threatened by a rival gang from Brixton, following a parking incident at the complex, they assembled having armed themselves with a variety of firearms.
4. They confronted the rival gang and in the ensuing shootout, in which a shotgun and three hand guns were fired, the victim who was a member of the rival gang was hit in the chest by a single bullet and died shortly afterwards.
5. The defendants were convicted on a joint enterprise basis and there was no reliable evidence as to who was the ringleader.
Previous convictions
6. Harris had served a three year term of imprisonment in USA. He had come to the UK in 1994. Murray was of good character and had come to the UK in 1998 on holiday. Hamilton was also of good character. He had overstayed but had applied for indefinite leave to remain in the UK having married a UK citizen. Cole was of good character. He had come to the UK in 1994 originally on holiday. He had a child born to a UK national and was married to another woman.
The relevant guidance at the time of sentence
7. This is contained in the letter sent to judges by Lord Bingham CJ on 10th February 1997. His practice was to take fourteen years as the period to be served for the “average, normal or unexceptional murder”. He then set out various mitigating and aggravating factors. The only potential mitigating factor was the relative youth of Hamilton, Murray and Cole. The aggravating factors were that firearms were used and the gang had armed themselves planning revenge.
Lord Bingham went onto say that while a recommendation of a punitive term of longer than 30 years would be very rare indeed there should be no upper limit. Some crimes would certainly call for terms very well in excess of the norm.
The recommendations of the trial judge and Lord Chief Justice
8. The trial Judge recommended a term of twenty years in each case indicating that there was no evidence on which to distinguish their culpability for the killing. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham CJ, recommended a term of eighteen to twenty years in each case. He pointed out that there appeared to be very little to mitigate the seriousness of the crime.
Representations
9. On behalf of Harris application was made for an oral hearing on the basis that (at the time of the application) his case was one of the first to be considered under the new legislation and was therefore exceptional. That contention has been overtaken by time and I do not consider that there is any reason for an oral hearing in this case. I do however take into account the written representations that have been made. The principal contention is that the minimum term should be set at the bottom of the bracket advanced by the Lord Chief Justice.
On behalf of Murray there has also been an application for an oral hearing. There are no exceptional circumstances in his case to justify such a hearing. However I take into account the written representations advanced on his behalf. It is contended that insufficient weight was given to his good character and his age. It is pointed out that he has taken part in various courses whilst in custody and is making good progress.
Hamilton draws attention to the remarks made to the trial Judge by his counsel prior to sentence. I have seen the transcript of those.
Cole has made lengthy written representations. In substantial part they are concerned with his contention that he is not guilty of the offence. In that respect they are of no assistance to me. He also points out his previous good character and what he has achieved in prison by way of courses completed and good behaviour.
No representations have been received from the deceased’s family.
Progress in prison
10. Some defendants have made good progress in prison but the progress is not “exceptional”.
The minimum term under schedule 21
11. I have to consider what the minimum term would have been had the murder taken place after the Criminal Justice Act 2003 had come into force. In my judgment this case falls to be considered under paragraph 5 as it is a murder involving the use of a firearm. Accordingly the relevant starting point would be one of thirty years. After taking into account any aggravating and mitigating factors I consider that the appropriate term under schedule 21 is thirty years.
My determination of the minimum term
12. I have to bear in mind that the minimum term I set must not be greater than that which under the practice followed by the Secretary of State before December 2002 he is likely to have set. In my judgment it is likely that he would have adopted for Murray, Hamilton and Cole a term of nineteen years which is the midway point of the bracket advanced by the Lord Chief Justice. He might in the case of Harris have set a term of twenty years by reason of the fact that he had previously been convicted in the United States of America and had served a sentence of imprisonment. However it is probable in my judgment that he would have in his case also have set the term at nineteen years. The trial Judge did not differentiate between the defendants and neither did the Lord Chief Justice. My conclusion accordingly is that the minimum term should be set in the case of each of the defendants at nineteen years. The time in custody on remand falls to be deducted in each case. That is for Harris nine months, for Murray 9 months, for Hamilton 9 months and fourteen days, and for Cole seven months and sixteen days.
13. It is important that the public understands that the setting of the minimum term does not mean that a defendant will be released once that term is served. His case will have to be considered by the Parole Board and it is if, and only if, the Parole Board concludes that it is safe for him to be released that he will be.