Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
This judgment is handed down in approved final form.
Case No: 204/181/MTS
Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWHC 2200 [QB]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: Friday 28th October 2005
Before:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
Regina
V
Andrew Simon Aston
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Mr Justice Butterfield:
1. On 20th February 2002 at the Birmingham Crown Court the defendant Simon Andrew Aston was convicted of 2 offences of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. As the trial Judge I recommended that he serve a minimum term of 25 years. The Lord Chief Justice recommended a tariff of 22 years.
2. The defendant has not been notified by the Secretary of State of the minimum period which in the view of the Secretary of State should be served before his release on licence. The defendant's case has accordingly been referred to me for the making of an order under of Section 269 in relation to the mandatory life sentence.
3. In determining the minimum period to be served by the defendant I have directed myself by reference to the provisions of Schedule 22 to the 2003 Act and in particular paragraphs 5-8. In assessing the seriousness of the offence I am required to have regard to the general principles set out in Schedule 21 and to the recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice as to the minimum term to be served.
4. The defendant has made no representations and has not sought an oral hearing. I do not consider that such a hearing is necessary. The families of the victims have stated they do not wish to make representations.
5. The facts are as follows. Over a period of 3 months the defendant, who was a drug user addicted to crack cocaine, repeatedly robbed elderly, infirm and vulnerable householders living in sheltered accommodation in order to feed his habit. He would gain access to their homes by a trick and once inside use violence or threat of violence to subdue any resistance before ransacking their homes in his search for money. If the victim did resist or protest the level of violence he used increased. Both his victims were killed in the course of such robberies.
6. The defendant's first victim was 87 years of age. He was attacked by the defendant with a weapon, probably a piece of timber, by use of which the defendant inflicted a number of injuries including a fracture of the cervical spine which crushed the spinal cord and resulted in complete paralysis. The victim died some days later in consequence of bronchial pneumonia which itself had developed because of the paralysis arising from the fracture of the neck.
7. The second murder was committed 9 days later. The victim was 80 years of age. When the defendant barged into his home he struck out at the defendant with his walking stick whereupon the defendant said to him: “If you hit me I'll kill you.” In the course of the incident the defendant hit his victim with a bat or stick causing severe bruising and a fracture of the femur. He died in consequence of bronchial pneumonia and congestive heart failure which in turn had been caused by the necessary operation to repair the fractured femur.
8. In expressing my view on the tariff to be served by the defendant in my Report to the Home Secretary I observed that neither murder was a premeditated killing and further in each case the intention proved was to cause really serious harm not to kill. That said these were both murders of frail, elderly, utterly innocent victims in their own homes by a stranger in the course of robbery and they were murders committed as part of a campaign of robbery in the course of which several of those robbed were also seriously injured but survived. The defendant has an extensive criminal record including one offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Not once did he show any remorse for what he had done in the course of the trial.
9. In terms of Schedule 21 these offences, involving the murder of two persons, is one for which the starting point would normally be 30 years. Aggravating features, though probably sufficiently reflected in the high starting point, included the defendant's participation in repeated robberies, and the particularly vulnerable nature of the victims. Against that, the mitigating factors that are relevant include an intention to cause serious bodily harm rather than to kill and lack of premeditation.
10. In my judgment it is probable that had this case been considered by the Secretary of State he would have accepted my recommendation rather than that of the Lord Chief Justice. However I cannot with sufficient certainty exclude the possibility that the Secretary of State would have adopted the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice, who plainly attached more weight to the lack of an intention to kill than did I.
11. Having considered all these circumstances I have concluded that the appropriate minimum period which the defendant must serve before the early release provisions are to apply to him is 22 years.
12. By virtue of paragraph 4(1)(b) of Schedule 22 account must also be taken of the time spent in custody on remand prior to sentence. In my judgment there is no reason why that time should not count towards the minimum period to be served by the defendant. In order to produce that result it is necessary to deduct it from the otherwise appropriate minimum term. Accordingly the specified period is one of 22 years less the period of remand in custody, namely 10 months 14 days.