Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
2004/226/MTR
Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWHC 571 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Tuesday, 15th March 2005
B E F O R E:
MR JUSTICE LANGLEY
- - - - - - -
A DECISION UPON AN APPLICATION UNDER PARAGRAPH 3 OF SCHEDULE 22 TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003
REGINA
-v-
JASON MARK ANDERSON
- - - - - - -
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes 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)
- - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
(As approved by the Court)
- - - - - - -
Crown copyright©
1. MR JUSTICE LANGLEY: This is an application under paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
2. The applicant, Jason Anderson, who was born on 24 April 1969, killed his partner on 30 November 1993 by stabbing her to death. On 12 January 1995 the applicant pleaded guilty to murder at Maidstone Crown Court and was sentenced by Blofeld J, as the law required, to life imprisonment.
3. The murder took place in the car park of a supermarket. The victim was stabbed some 48 times. Their 18 month-old son was in the car at the time. No explanation for the murder was put forward in mitigation but there was evidence of problems in the relationship.
4. Blofeld J recommended that the length of detention necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and general deterrence should be 10 years. The Lord Chief Justice (Lord Taylor) recommended 11 to 12 years. The term notified by the Secretary of State was 12 years.
5. In a letter written in June of last year, the applicant has expressed remorse. He was remanded in custody for 13 months and 11 days before he was sentenced.
6. I have considered the factors to which paragraph 4 of Schedule 22 to the Act requires me to have regard. In this case the notification of the Secretary of State and the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice are compatible. I am satisfied that if the applicant had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, that term would have been treated as reduced by the 13 months and 11 days he spent in custody on remand. The general principles set out in Schedule 21 would in this case dictate an "appropriate starting point" of 15 years. I do not think the information before me demonstrates any aggravating factors, save for the presence of the son in the car, and there are mitigating factors in the lack of premeditation and the plea of guilty. Consistent with the decision in Last & Others v R [2005] EWCA Crim 106, the plea would permit a maximum reduction of one sixth in the minimum term.
7. In those circumstances, I think the "tariff" set by the Lord Chief Justice and notified by the Secretary of State remains appropriate in this case. I will therefore direct that the early release provisions are to apply in this case as soon as the applicant has served 12 years less 13 months and 11 days.