Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Case No: MTR/211/2004
Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWHC 1183 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday, 18th May 2005
Before :
MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH
Between :
Regina
V
Steven Leonard Aspley
----------------------------------
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
----------------------------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Andrew Smith
1. This is an application under Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I have considered written representations dated 12 January 2004 and 5 May 2004 in support of the application.
2. The applicant, Steven Leonard Aspley, is an “existing prisoner” within the meaning of Schedule 22. On 19 January 1994 he was convicted of the murder of Carol Ann Randle on 6 January 1993 and sentenced to life imprisonment. On 20 October 1994 he was notified in writing by the Secretary of State that the minimum period which in the view of the Secretary of State should be served before his release on licence was 14 years.
3. I have to decide whether I should order that the early release provisions under the 2003 Act should apply to him after a shorter period than 14 years. It is not open to me to order that they should apply after a longer period.
4. In considering this application, I must have regard to the seriousness of the offence of murder that the applicant committed, and in doing so, I must have regard to the general principles set out in Schedule 21 of the Act and also to the recommendation made to the Secretary of State by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice as to the minimum term to be served by the applicant before release on licence. In this case, the minimum term recommended by the trial judge, Mr Justice Turner, was 12 years and that recommended by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor was 14 years.
5. I am also to have regard to the effect that Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 would have had if the applicant had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, provided I am satisfied that, if he had been so sentenced, the length of his sentence would have been treated as reduced by a particular period under that section: therefore the court takes account of any period that a person has spent in custody only because he was committed to custody by an order of the court made in connection with proceedings relating to the murder: I am satisfied that here I should have regard to a period of 12 months and 10 days spent in custody on remand.
6. The applicant was born on 18 November 1957. therefore he was aged 35 years when he murdered Carol Randle, and 36 years when he was convicted and sentenced. He is now aged 47 years. The applicant and Carol Randle lived together and were both alcoholics. The trial judge described their relationship as “stormy” but observed that there was no firm evidence that the applicant had previously used violence towards her; and there is no reason to doubt his statement in his representations made in letters in 1994 and 1995 that he had not used violence against either her or any other of the women with whom he had previously had relationships. Although he had a long record (including convictions for robbery and assault and intent to rob in 1975, affray in 1978 and an assault for which he was conditionally discharged in 19870, he did not have previous offences of serious or recent violence.
7. On 6 January 1993, the applicant killed Carol Randle in a frenzied attack with a baseball bat. It was triggered by a trivial dispute about watching television. The trial judge describes him as “disinhibited by alcohol” and the offence as a “truly awesome incidence of violence”. He hit his victim no fewer than nine or ten blows to the face and head, and her face was quite unrecognisable.
8. The defence at the trial was alack of intent and provocation. It is now accepted by those acting for the applicant that the provocation fell well short of a defence to murder and simply acted as a trigger for the assault on Carol Randle.
9. I consider that the starting point for determining the minimum term in this case to be 15 years: there are no considerations that would justify a longer starting point. However, I take into account the following matters, which go to reduce the minimum term:
1. The killing was not premeditated.
2. There is no proper basis for concluding that the applicant’s intention was to kill rather than cause serious bodily harm, and the applicant is entitled to have the minimum term determined upon the basis that he did not intend to kill. However, I give this consideration the less weight because of the ferocity of the attack.
10. I also observe that (despite the absence of previous violence) this is a case generally comparable to those described by Lord Bingham LCJ in his letter of 10 February 1997 in which he said that he tended to recommend a term somewhat below the norm of 14 years “in the not unfamiliar case in which a married couple, or two derelicts, or two homosexuals, inflamed by drink, indulge in a violent quarrel in which one dies, often against a background of longstanding drunken violence”.
11. In the circumstances, I conclude that the minimum term should reflect these considerations by being set at 13 years rather than 15 years. I recognise that this is one year shorter than the term recommended by Lord Taylor and notified to the applicant by the Secretary of State. However, I am comforted in my conclusion by the recommendation of the trial judge and what was said by Lord Bingham. I add that, while I do not regard the applicant’s progress in prison as so exceptional as to merit a specific further reduction and I should in any case have reduced the minimum term, his behaviour provides some further comfort that a reduction would not be inappropriate.
12. I therefore order that early release provisions are to apply as soon as the applicant has served 13 years. The 375 days that this applicant served in custody on remand count as time served by him as part of his sentence and the period of 13 years should be reduced accordingly.