Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 1384 (QB)
Case No: 2006/72/MTR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 14th June 2007
Before:
MR. JUSTICE HOLLAND
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Application by Mark Anthony Apperley for the setting of a minimum term pursuant to Schedule 22, paragraph 3, 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 Holland:
1. This matter becomes before me in the following circumstances. One the 17th March 1997 at Bristol Crown Court Mark Anthony Apperley (“the Applicant”) was convicted of the murder of John Doran on the 17th March 1996. The circumstances giving rise to the offence were as follows. The Applicant took the deceased, then drunk to his (the deceased’s) flat. Once there he attacked the deceased with a sporting trophy causing very substantial damage to his face and killing him. He then set fire to the body seemingly to destroy DNA and fingerprint evidence. After initial prevarication he admitted the killing, alleging that the deceased had made a homosexual advance and that he, the Applicant, was under the influence of drink and drugs. There was psychiatric evidence identifying an unstable, potentially explosive personality disorder. The Applicant was then aged 25 and had previous convictions for violence.
2. Having sentenced the Applicant to life imprisonment the trial judge, Harrison J. recommended that he should serve a minimum period of 15 years before becoming eligible to apply for release on licence. The then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham C.J. made the same recommendation. On the 9th December 1998 the Secretary of State notified the Applicant that the minimum term would be 15 years.
3. By way of an Application Notice of the 4th May 2006 made pursuant to Section 276 and Schedule 22, Criminal Justice Act 2003 the Applicant seeks a High Court order specifying anew the minimum period that must be served before the early release provisions can apply. The application has been referred to me. I note that I must have regard to paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 22 and the general principles as set out in Schedule 21. In any event I have received and read the representations made on the Applicant’s behalf as well as the victim statement. I am asked for an oral hearing: I can find no justification for such.
4. Turning to my decision, I have to start by having regard to the application of the general principles as set out in Schedule 21 as is required by paragraph 4(2) Schedule 22. By way of these principles I am first required to identify a starting point for the current computation of a minimum period from the options specified in Schedule 21. In my judgment the starting point as so identified has to be 15 years. I am required to take into account any aggravating or mitigating factors. As to aggravating factors additional to such justifying a 15 year starting point I can discern, first, the vulnerability of the victim; second, the degree of suffering inflicted before death; and third, the attempted destruction of the body.. As to mitigating factors, I can only discern the fact of the personality disorder. In the overall result by reference to current general principles the minimum period could not be less than 16 years.
5. I turn to the remaining factors: the contemporaneous judicial recommendations, the present representations and the victim impact statement. I remind myself that I cannot specify a period greater than that previously notified to the Applicant (see paragraph 3(1)(a) Schedule 22).
6. In the overall result everything points to fixing the period at 15 years less 11½ months (the approximate period spent in custody on remand) – that is, 14 years and 15 days. Such matches the period as notified and represents a discount on the period as assessed by reference to current general principles so as to give credit for all that can be said on behalf of the Applicant.