Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWHC 2248 (QB)
Case No: MTR/55/05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 26TH October 2005
Before :
MR JUSTICE MITTING
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
REGINA
v
ANTHONY SAMUEL BAKER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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.
.............................
Mr Justice Mitting :
1. On 30th March 1998 the defendant was convicted after a trial of murder and wounding with intent on 26th May 1987. He was then 27.
2. A summary of the description and circumstances of the offence by the trial judge, McCullough J is a follows:
Baker had had a longstanding relationship with the sister of a man named McLeod. He then took up with another woman, Collette Jackson. There was hostility between the two women. On 27.5.1987 McLeod, a man named James and others called at the home of Collette Jackson and attacked her, causing an injury requiring hospital treatment. Baker heard about the attack and there was an altercation between him and McLeod's group, during which Baker produced a knife. McLeod and another were arrested following a complaint by Collette Jackson, but released when Baker persuaded here to withdraw the complaint, he having decided to take the law into his own hands. McLeod and James were joined by the deceased, Julian Bradshaw, and another and the four of them set off in James's car looking for Baker. In the interim, Baker, having armed himself with a shotgun, went out in his car, looking for McLeod and the others. When the two groups finally met in their respective vehicles, they pulled into a cul-de-sac where McLeod's group, including the deceased, armed with machetes or riot sticks, approached Baker's vehicle. Baker got out of the vehicle with the gun and threatened them, firing the weapon. Two of the group ran off. McLeod and the deceased, Bradshaw, managed to get back to James's car. Baker discharged the shot gun at close range at James's vehicle, hitting McLeod in the abdomen and Bradshaw in the arm. Bradshaw got into the driver's seat and attempted to drive off, however he lost control and crashed into a garden. Baker chased the vehicle on foot. Bradshaw got out of the vehicle and ran. Baker caught up with him in another cul-de-sac and, when he had him up against the wall, shot him twice more at close range in the buttocks and abdomen, whilst Bradshaw pleaded with him not to do so. Baker told Bradshaw he had been warned and ran off. Bradshaw died from the abdominal injury soon after.
3. The trial judge described the offence as a “merciless revenge killing”.
4. He recommended a tariff of 20 years. The Lord Chief Justice recommended a tariff of 18 years. By a letter dated 19th July 1994, the Home Secretary notified a tariff of 20 years. By a further letter dated 25th April 2001 he set the defendant's tariff afresh at 20 years.
5. In setting the minimum term, I am required to have regard to the factors set out in paragraph 4 of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Paragraph 4 (2)(a) requires me to have regard to the general principle set out in Schedule 21 when assessing the seriousness of the offences.
6. This was a revenge killing by the use of a firearm. As such, it clearly falls within the category identified in paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 as one in which the seriousness of the offences is “particularly high”. The starting point is, therefore, 30 years.
7. I have received two written representations:
i) A letter from the defendant's solicitors dated 26th August 2005,
ii) A hand written note from the victim's sister attached to a letter from the victim liaison unit dated 1st August 2005.
8. I am un-persuaded that there was any true provocation, even falling far short of a partial defence. This was, as the trial judge described it simply a “merciless revenge killing”. The fact that the victim was armed either with a machete or riot stick before he was shot is immaterial. When he was shot, he was defenceless. The remorse and good conduct which the defendant has displayed in recent years are, no doubt, relevant to the determination of when, if at all, the defendant should be released after he has served the minimum term. They are not relevant to its length.
9. The statutory scheme does not permit me to accede to the suggestion of the victim's sister. By paragraph 3(1)(a) of Schedule 22, I may not set a minimum term greater than the minimum term notified by the Home Secretary.
10. I am required to have regard to the recommendations of the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. In the light of the general principle set out in Schedule 21, the trial judge's recommendation must prevail.
11. The 10 months spent on remand should be deducted under paragraph 4 (1)(b) of Schedule 22.
12. For the reasons given, I direct that the provisions of Section 28 (5-8) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 shall apply to the defendant 19 years and 60 days after the date on which he was sentenced.