Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 125 (QB)
Case No: 2004/279/MTS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 30/01/2007
Before :
MR JUSTICE TREACY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R
v
VASO ALIU
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
.............................
THE HON MR JUSTICE TREACY
The Honourable Mr Justice Treacy :
1. This Defendant is Vaso Aliu. His date of birth is 13 September 1972. In September 2002 Mr Aliu was convicted by a Jury at the Central Criminal Court of the offence of murder. The Trial Judge, His Honour Judge Martin Stephens QC passed sentence on the 17 September 2002. He imposed a sentence of Life Imprisonment.
2. The Judge subsequently recommended that Aliu should serve a minimum term of 12 years before he could be considered for release by the Parole Board. Lord Woolf CJ endorsed the Trial Judge's recommendation. I have considered the Trial Judge's report, the transcript of mitigation, the Judge's Sentencing Remarks and a Victim Impact Statement submitted on behalf of the deceased's family. The Defendant has not made any submissions to me but I am satisfied that he has been given the opportunity to do so.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The Defendant and the deceased, Marquerite Van Campenhout, had co-habited for about three years. She sought to end the relationship but Aliu persisted in trying to see her and began to harass her. She complained to the Police. On 11 January 2002 Aliu wrapped up a knife at his home. He travelled from there to Euston Station where he confronted the deceased and a work colleague. He spoke to the pair of them for about half and hour and then said he had a present for the deceased. He produced a package which he opened “slowly and meticulously”. He then stabbed her twice to the chest, piercing her heart. He was also convicted of wounding the work colleague with intent and also of wounding a third person with intent. This third person had tried to intervene to save the deceased during the attack. The Defendant then cut his own throat and stabbed himself in the chest.
4. The Defendant raised issues of provocation and diminished responsibility. It is clear from the Jury's verdict that those partial defences were rejected by the Jury who returned a unanimous guilty verdict. The appellant who is a native of Albania was 30 years of age at the time of sentencing. He had no previous convictions recorded against him in this country.
5. Turning to consider matters of aggravation, the Trial Judge found that there was a degree of planning or premeditation. In addition, the Defendant had armed himself in advance and he wounded others who attempted to prevent him from completing his attack upon the victim.
6. As to mitigation, the Judge took into account the considerable emotional state in which the Defendant was. This is most clearly evidenced by the would-be suicidal injuries he inflicted upon himself immediately after the attack. It also appears that Aliu attempted suicide whilst in custody awaiting the trial proceedings.
7. This crime was a dreadful act of selfishness. An innocent young woman was wrongfully deprived of her life and her family are left to grieve. It is right to record that the Defendant acknowledged his responsibility for manslaughter and was remorseful for what he had done.
8. Since this offence was committed prior to the 18 December 2003 the transitional provisions incorporated into the Criminal Justice Act 2003 apply. Those transitional provisions are to be found in Schedule 22 to the Act. The practical effect of those provisions is explained in the decision of Sullivan and Ors [2004] EWCA (Crim) 1762. The correct approach is to have regard to the letter sent to judges by Lord Bingham CJ on the 10 February 1997. That letter indicates a starting point of 14 years for the minimum term to be served, subject to the explanation at Paragraph 29 to 34 of the decision in Sullivan.
9. I have taken account of the recommendation made by the Trial Judge which was subsequently endorsed by The Lord Chief Justice. I reminded myself that the Trial Judge was in a better position than I to observe the Defendant and to get the feel of the case as a whole. In my judgment, the decision of the Trial Judge as to the minimum recommended period was correct, and I share his view as to the appropriate term
10. Taking account of these matters I fix the minimum term to be served as one of 12 years from which credit will be given for the period spent in custody on remand, namely a period of 7 months and 25 days. This does not in fact represent any practical difference to the Trial Judge's recommendation since credit would have been given administratively under the previous practice.
DECISION:
11. The minimum term is set at 12 years less 7 months and 25 days.