Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWHC 2419 (QB)
Case No: 2004/59/MTS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
IN THE BIRMINGHAM CROWN COURT
Date: 09/12/2005
Before:
THE HON. MR. JUSTICE MCKINNON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Criminal Justice Act, 2003, Schedule 22
Judge's Order under Section 269
--------------------------------------------------
R E G I N A
-v-
ANDREW THOMAS HOWELLS
McKinnon, J :
D EC I S I O N
1. I am required by Section 269 (3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to set such minimum term as I consider appropriate taking into account the seriousness of the offence. In arriving at that minimum term, there are four steps which I am required to take as the murder here was committed before 18th December 2003.
2. The facts are taken from my report to the Home Secretary. The deceased, Melvin Ashton Jones, was 43 years of age when he was killed by the defendant. He had a reputation as a violent and dangerous man. He had many convictions for violence. He had been sentenced in 1988 to 14 years imprisonment for a particularly violent rape and served 10 years, being released on 24th July, 1998. The defendant and the deceased had known each other for some years and from time to time drank together. On Saturday 29th January 2000 at about 11.15 p.m. the defendant for no apparent reason attacked the deceased in Dukes' Nightclub in Tonypandy. The deceased was sitting down. The defendant approached him and without warning punched him hard to the face knocking the deceased unconscious. The defendant then left the nightclub and waited outside with two of his friends. Not long before 11.30 p.m. the deceased also left the nightclub. When he got outside into the street, he was attacked again by the defendant. The defendant punched the deceased to the ground and then punched and kicked him when he was defenceless (and probably unconscious) on the ground. The deceased sustained injuries to his face: on both sides of the face, there was disruption of the jaw plus fractures of both cheekbones and of both eye sockets. Those fractures allowed bleeding into the sinuses, death probably resulting from an obstruction to the airways. Although it was obvious that the deceased was seriously injured, the defendant and his friends simply left the scene doing nothing to help the deceased. Both the defendant and the deceased had had a considerable quantity to drink, the defendant also having taken an ecstasy tablet.
3. The first step is to choose one of three starting points, whole life, 30 years or 15 years. In my judgment, it is appropriate to take the starting point of 15 years. That is because this case falls within the category of an offence, the seriousness of which is neither exceptionally high nor particularly high within paragraphs 4 (1) or 5 (2) of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
4. The second step is take account of any aggravating or mitigating factors which would justify departure from the starting point of 15 years. The aggravating features are that this was a vicious attack involving very forceful use of fists and foot upon an entirely defenceless, probably unconscious man. Further, the defendant has previous convictions for offences involving violence including one for kidnapping, two for assaults occasioning actual bodily harm and two for assaults on police. The mitigating features are that the defendant's intention was probably to cause serious bodily harm rather than to kill and the lack of premeditation. The defendant's defences of self-defence and provocation were both unanimously rejected by the jury; there is no room now for a finding that the defendant acted to any extent in self-defence or that he was provoked in a way not amounting to a defence of provocation. The defendant contends that he has made real improvement in prison; I do not regard that feature as sufficiently exceptional to justify any deduction. For the aggravating features I would add three years. For the mitigating features I would deduct three years. Thus, the starting point is 15 years.
5. The third step is to deduct from the starting point of 15 years the precise time that the defendant spent on remand in custody. That is 7 months 11 days. So, in broad terms, (not being entirely precise) I arrive at a proposed minimum term of 14 years.
6. The fourth step is to check whether that proposed term is greater than the term which the Secretary of State would probably have notified under the practice followed by the Secretary of State before December 2002. Where, as here, the murder was committed before 31st May 2002, the best guide to what would have been the practice of the Secretary of State is the letter sent to Judges by Lord Bingham, CJ on 10th February 1997. Following the practice of Lord Bingham, I take as the first step the period actually to be served for the “average”, “normal” or “unexceptional” murder as 14 years. The next and final step is to look at the factors capable of mitigating the normal penalty and the factors likely to call for a sentence more severe than the norm. Here, the aggravating and mitigating factors are as set out in paragraph 4 above. They cancel out, leaving the figure at 14 years.
7. Accordingly, I set the minimum term that the defendant must serve before the Parole Board can consider his release on licence as one of 14 years. That minimum term is the minimum amount of time the defendant will spend in prison, from the date of sentence, before the Parole Board can order early release. If it remains necessary for the protection of the public, the defendant will continue to be detained after that date. Where the defendant has served the minimum term and the Parole Board has decided to direct release, the defendant will remain on licence for the rest of his life and may be recalled to prison at any time.