Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Case No: 2004/343/MTS
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 25(QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Friday 26th January 2007
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FORBES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
REGINA Claimant
- and -
JESKIRAN BAL Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown copyright©
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FORBES:
1. On the 15TH April 2002, following a trial at the Central Criminal Court before Her Honour Judge Goddard QC and a Jury, Jeskiran Bal (“the defendant”) was convicted of the murder of his wife Marie Bal (“the deceased”).
2. The brief facts are as follows. On 26th April 2000, the body of the deceased, who was then aged 22, was discovered in the river Roding. The deceased was five and half months pregnant at the time. Her body was wrapped in a knotted duvet cover and was found slightly submerged in the water by a sluice gate controlling the river. The trial judge was of the opinion that it was likely that the defendant had put the body in a nearby culvert some days earlier.
3. On examination, bruising was found to the right and back of the deceased’s skull and to the left side of her lower jaw. She had been manually strangled, resulting in the fracture of her hyoid bone and the surrounding cartilage. The defendant had reported her missing on 17th March 2000.
4. It was the Crown’s case that the defendant had murdered the deceased during a quarrel that had taken place on 17th March at the matrimonial home which they shared with their three and a half year old son.
5. The defendant had been having a serious affair with another woman over a period of some months. Although there was no evidence that the deceased knew about her husband’s affair, there was evidence that the defendant and the deceased had been quarrelling. A neighbour, Pamela Read-Dickson, gave evidence that, in the period shortly before the night of the 16th/17th March 2000, she had heard the couple quarrelling on a number of occasions. She stated that she had heard “heated arguments” with raised voices and that, on some occasions, she had heard the deceased screaming during the course of such arguments, which had taken place during the early hours of the morning.
6. In her report to the Home Secretary, the trial judge expressed the view that the killing had not been premeditated, but was committed in a fit of anger during an argument.
7. The trial judge recommended a tariff of 15/16 years. The Lord Chief Justice agreed with the trial judge’s recommendation. In my judgment, under the practice followed before 2002, the Secretary of State would have been likely to notify the defendant that the minimum period to be served by him before release on licence would be 16 years.
8. In setting the minimum term I take account of the general principles set out in Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the recommendations made by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. In my view, applying the general principles of Schedule 21, this is an offence that would now attract a starting point of 15 years, which would be adjusted upwards to 18 years, having regard to the following aggravating factors:
i) The fact that the deceased was five and a half months pregnant,
ii) The attempted concealment of the body and
iii) the lack of remorse at trial.
I accept that the period of 18 years would be a further adjusted downwards to 17 years to take account of the sole mitigating factor, namely the absence of premeditation. After giving credit for the period of 13 months spent in custody on remand, the resulting minimum term would now be 15 years 11 months.
9. I also take into account the detailed written submissions made by Hickman and Rose, Solicitors, on behalf of the defendant and, in particular, the fact that the defendant now admits that he killed the deceased and is genuinely remorseful for what he has done. Having regard to all the foregoing and to the terms of paragraph 8(a) of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, I am satisfied that the appropriate minimum term is one of 15 years.
10. Accordingly, I fix the minimum term to be served at 15 years. That minimum term is the amount of time that the defendant will spend in prison from the date of sentence before the Parole Board can order early release. If it remains necessary for the protection of the public, the defendant will continue to be detained after that date. When the defendant has served the minimum term, and if the Parole Board decides to direct his release, he will remain on licence for the rest of his life and may be recalled to prison at any time.