Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 2349 (QB)
Case No: 2007/6/MTR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 18 October 2007
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ROYCE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
Regina
- v -
Anthony Andrew Antoniou
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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 HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ROYCE
Mr Justice Royce :
1. On 19th March 1997 at Nottingham Crown Court following a trial before Mr Justice Latham as he then was the defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. Under schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 his case requires review 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. Shortly before midnight on 21st December 1995 the defendant stabbed his stepfather Steve McCarthy to death. It was a savage and sustained attack carried out in the defendant’s car when his stepfather was sitting in the passenger seat. He used a short Japanese knife. He got the body out of the car and used a replica Japanese sword to cut off the head. He also tried to cut off one of the hands. He was however either interrupted or frightened and as a result simply left the headless body fully clothed in the lay-by where it was discovered the following morning. He drove the car together with the head to a farm near Luton and together with a co-defendant he buried the head and hid the vehicle.
4. He was arrested the day after the murder but denied any involvement and was released. He was rearrested on 17th January 1996 and eventually admitted he was responsible for the killing. He told the police he decided to kill his stepfather in August 1995 and had bought the knife and sword for that purpose in November 1995. He alleged that his stepfather had destroyed his family and had physically and sexually abused him.
5. At his trial he denied that the killing was premeditated. He maintained that he and his stepfather were driving to Manchester in order to buy some cannabis and that he had taken the sword and knife for protection. He said that during a conversation between them in a lay-by his stepfather had accused him of having a filthy mind and had taken hold of the sword which caused the defendant to lose control and stab him with the knife. Psychiatric evidence was called in support of a defence of diminished responsibility. The psychiatrists however agreed that their view was dependent on the killing having been the result of an unplanned spur of the moment attack. That was rejected by the jury.
The relevant guidance at the time of sentence
6. This is contained in the letter sent to Judges by Lord Bingham CJ on 10th February 1997. His practice was to take 14 years as the period to be served for the “average, normal or unexceptional murder.” He then set out various mitigating and aggravating factors. Among the mitigating factors are (a) mental abnormality and (b) provocation in the non-technical sense. Among the aggravating factors are (a) evidence of a planned killing, (b) the use of dangerous weapons and (c) macabre attempts to dismember or conceal the body.
The recommendations of the trial Judge and Lord Chief Justice
7. The trial Judge commented:
“the aggravating features of the murder were that it was a premeditated and savage killing. The defendant undoubtedly considered that his stepfather had behaved so badly both to him and the rest of the family, that he was justified in killing him. In my view his mother bears some responsibility for what happened. Even if she did not directly instigate the murder, she deliberately fuelled the defendant’s hatred of his stepfather. Whilst the defendant is clearly capable therefore of dreadful violence, it seems to me highly unlikely that the very special circumstances which created the hatred which produced the violence will be repeated. All the character evidence was to the effect the defendant was not in any way a violent man. Despite the aggravating features, the extraordinary background to this offence was such that I consider 14 years will meet the requirements of retribution and general deterrence.”
8. The Lord Chief Justice agreed with that view.
9. The Secretary of State notified the Defendant on 16th July 1999 that the tariff was set at 14 years.
Representations
10. After the tariff period was notified solicitors on the defendant’s behalf made representations that the tariff should be reviewed bearing in mind the psychiatric evidence in respect of the defendant’s mental state at the material time. Further consideration was given to the tariff by the Secretary of State. On 18th July 2001, the defendant was notified that it was set at 14 years.
11. I have read the submissions now advanced on the defendant’s behalf. Included within the documentation is:-
i) Psychiatric report of Judith Anderson dated 1st March 1997
ii) Psychiatric report of Dr Ian Wilson dated 30th September 1996
iii) Supplementary psychiatric report of Dr Wilson dated 27th February 1997
iv) Letter received by Howells Solicitors from Dr Wilson dated 26th October 1998
v) Psychiatric report of Dr Hayes dated 12th March 2004.
12. It is submitted on his behalf that the appropriate minimum term would be one in the region of 10 years.
Progress in prison
13. I do not regard his progress in prison as “exceptional”.
The minimum term under schedule 21
14. 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 the starting point would have been one of 15 years. The aggravating and mitigating factors would have balanced each other resulting in a term of 15 years.
My determination
15. I may not increase the minimum term notified by the Secretary of State. I am wholly unpersuaded by the representations advanced on the defendant’s behalf that the minimum term should be anything other than that recommended by the trial Judge and endorsed by the Lord Chief Justice. My review of the term notified by the Secretary of State therefore leads to the conclusion that it should remain at 14 years. The time spent in custody on remand of 14 months has to be deducted from that minimum term.
16. It is important that the public understands that the minimum term is just that. It does not mean that the 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.