Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 1866 (QB)
Case No: 2004/746/MTS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (Crim Div)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 21/08/2007
Before :
THE HON MR JUSTICE TREACY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
R
- and -
MICHAEL ULLAH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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
(Setting of Minimum Term Schedule 22 Criminal Justice Act 2003)
The Honourable Mr Justice Treacy :
1. This Defendant is Michael Ullah. His date of birth is 23 October 1955. He pleaded guilty before me at Sheffield Crown Court on 30 June 2003. The offence to which he pleaded guilty was one of murder. I sentenced him on 25 July 2003. The sentence was one of Life Imprisonment. In due course I made a minimum term recommendation of 16 years.
2. Due to the fact that sentencing arrangements for those convicted of murder were in transition, the papers did not go the Lord Chief Justice for his recommendation.
3. The murder was committed on 1 January 2003. The victim was a name called Lester Divers. He was the leader or a prominent member of a criminal gang in Sheffield. That gang’s activities included dealing in hard drugs. Michael Ullah was a criminal associate of Craig Allen. The evidence showed that Allen was the head of a gang dealing in hard drugs. There was material which showed that Divers’ gang was pursuing a policy of violence and extortion towards rival gangs. This murder involved an execution style killing in response to the inter-gang disputes or “turf wars”.
4. Mr Divers was executed by being shot outside his home at point blank range. He was shot with a sawn-off shotgun, illegally acquired and shortened by Ullah. There was a co-accused, Kevin Smith, who was convicted in the trial. His role was that of a driver. It was plain to me that Ullah was not the financier and organiser of this murder. Craig Allen was acquitted by the jury of involvement.
5. It is clear that the killing was a well-planned execution. Ullah had previously carried out a reconnaissance of a house occupied by an associate of Divers with a view to shooting that person. Ullah, along with Smith, was a fully committed participant in the plan to kill Divers.
6. In Ullah’s case I have read a letter written by him to the Minimum Term section. I have also considered representations made on his behalf by Carrington Solicitors. Those representations were in writing. Mr Ullah asked for the opportunity of an oral hearing. I have considered that request. In the light of the decision of the High Court in Hammond (2004) EWHC Admin 2753, as subsequently approved by the House of Lords, I do not consider that this is one of those rare cases where an oral hearing is necessary. I am entirely satisfied that, being the Trial Judge, having in addition the benefit of representations made by solicitors for Mr Ullah, together with his own representations and the very full mitigation put forward by Peter Joyce QC on his behalf at trial, an oral hearing is not necessary as I am confident I have a full grasp of all the relevant facts and issues in this matter.
7. Although the victim’s family have been invited to make representations, they have not responded.
8. The aggravating elements in this case are plain. This was a gang-land execution style killing. It was premeditated. An unlawful firearm, which Ullah had acquired, was used. Mr Ullah has been a serious and persistent criminal whose previous record includes violence, hard drugs supply and firearms offences.
9. As to mitigation, the major point in Ullah’s favour is that he pleaded guilty. Although he in fact pleaded guilty on the first day of the trial, I am prepared to deal with the matter on the basis that this was adumbrated shortly before the trial. It is strongly urged upon me that Ullah killed Lester Divers because he feared that he would be kidnapped by Divers’ gang, tortured and forced to reveal the whereabouts of his own gang leader, Craig Allen. There was substantial material which showed the vicious nature of Divers’ gang and which could support the fears asserted by Michael Ullah. However, I cannot attach any significant weight to this line of mitigation advanced. Mr Ullah’s response to the perceived threat to him, if his assertions are correct, was to take a wholly unlawful step himself. Moreover, he had immersed himself heavily in the drug gang culture of Sheffield. It is an almost inevitable feature of such involvement that serious disputes will arise between the gangs and therefore the threat allegedly perceived by Mr Ullah is something which arises out of his own involvement in serious criminal matters.
10. Since this offence was committed prior to 18 December 2003, the transitional provisions incorporated into the Criminal Justice Act 2003 apply. These transitional provisions are to be found in Schedule 22 of the Act. The practical effect of the provisions is explained in the decision of Sullivan & Others (2004) EWCA Crim 1762.
11. Were I fixing the minimum term in modern times this case would qualify for a 30 year starting point. However, the transitional provisions make clear that I must not deal with Mr Ullah any more severely than would have been the practice prior to the coming into force of the Act. Accordingly, the correct approach is to sentence by reference to the Practice Statement of Lord Woolf Chief Justice, of 31 May 2002. For the reasons stated above this case falls within the higher starting point of 15 to 16 years identified by the Practice Statement. The gravity of this offence would take it to a point somewhat higher than that starting point, particularly having regard to the features of planning, use of a firearm and this Defendant’s criminal record. As against that I have regard to the fact that he was not, in my view, the organiser or financier of this criminal venture and that I should give a little weight but not much to the fact that at the relevant time he was a drug addict, dependent upon and in thrall to Craig Allen.
12. By far the most substantial mitigating factor is his plea of guilty, albeit at a relatively late stage. The practice in 2003, when Mr Ullah was sentenced, was perhaps to give a greater degree of weight to a plea of guilty than would now the practice in the criminal courts following the guidelines given subsequent to this case by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. It seems to me that I should be faithful to the more generous allowance in relation to guilty pleas which was given by the courts in 2003.
13. Taking all those matters into account I fix the minimum term to be served before Mr Ullah can be considered for release by the Parole Board at 16 years. Against that figure an allowance of 6 months must be made for time spent in custody on remand pursuant to s.240 of the 2003 Act. This does not in fact represent any practical difference to my recommendation after trial, since credit would have been given administratively under the law as it previously stood. In the event that 6 months does not accurately represent the amount of time spent in custody on remand, I indicate that it is my intention that the full period spent on remand should be credited towards sentence and any necessary adjustment in that figure to represent the reality should be notified to me promptly.
Decision:
14. The minimum is set at 16 years less 6 months.