Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 426 (QB)
Case No: 2004/175/MTS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 17 March 2006
Before:
THE HON. MR JUSTICE GRAY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
REGINA
- and -
SERTAN BALCI
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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.
.............................
THE HON. MR JUSTICE GRAY
Mr Justice Gray:
1. On 11 February 2002 Sertan Balci was sentenced by His Honour Judge Roberts QC sitting at the Central Criminal Court, following a contested trial, to the then mandatory life sentence for the murder in the early hours of New Year's Day 2001 of Elizabeth Amlot. Balci had also been convicted by the jury of robbery of Ms Amlot but no separate penalty was imposed for that offence. Sentences of 8 years were imposed by the Judge for three further offences of robbery committed by Balci on the same night after he had murdered Ms Amlot. Those sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the life sentence for murder.
2. In accordance with the procedure which then applied the learned trial judge expressed the view that the period that Balci serve in custody before being released should be 16 years. The then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, agreed with that recommendation.
3. Sertan Balci is an “existing prisoner” within the meaning of Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2003. His case has been referred to the High Court under that Schedule for an order to be made pursuant to Section 269 of the 2003 Act, as to whether, having regard to the seriousness of his offending, the early release provisions should apply to his case and, if so, what part of his sentence should be specified in the order.
4. The facts of the case and the circumstances in which the murder was committed were in brief these: at about 1.45am on 1 January 2001 Balci, who had consumed a substantial quantity of whisky that night, encountered Ms Amlot on the street. Ms Amlot had been to a party and had herself had a good deal to drink. She was walking home alone when Balci came upon her.
5. Balci engaged her in conversation and walked her down an alleyway. When they had gone about 50 yards down the alleyway, Balci attacked her. In the course of the attack he grabbed her handbag and pulled her watch from her arm. He also removed her trousers and pulled down her knickers. There was, however, no evidence of any actual interference with her private parts. The evidence was that Balci then kicked Ms Amlot repeatedly about the head and neck with such severity that she suffered irreversible brain damage. She died in hospital five weeks later.
6. Leaving Ms Amlot seriously injured, Balci returned to his flat; washed and changed and then went out again. At about 2.30am he encountered a young man walking home. Balci threatened him with a knife; forced him to empty his pockets and, on finding that he was in possession of a cashcard, forced him to withdraw £170 from two cash dispensing machines. Later Balci went to the man's flat where he stole a number of items, including some kitchen knives, one of which he gratuitously used to inflict superficial wounds to one of the man's hands.
7. Sertan Balci was 20 years old when he murdered Ms Amlot. His background is that he was a member of the minority Kurdish community living in Turkey. He came to England with his family when he was aged 12. Between the ages of 13 and 15 he committed a series of indecent assaults upon girls and young women. He was made the subject of supervision orders. He was placed in residential children's homes. On several occasions he assaulted fellow residents at those homes, which resulted in further supervision orders being made.
8. By the age of 18 it seemed that Balci had settled down. It was felt appropriate that he should be permitted to live on his own in a flat which was provided for him by the local council. Unfortunately in December 1999 he attempted to commit a burglary, for which he was sentenced in February 2001 to nine months in a Young Offenders Institution.
9. There is no Victim Family Statement in this case. However, written representations compiled by solicitors instructed by Balci have been placed before the court. I have read them with care. (I should point out that the representations are in error in stating that the Judge made a recommendation of 18 years; that was the term which the Judge would have recommended but for Balci's age). It is submitted in the representations that Balci's previous offences were unplanned and involved no violence against the victims. It is contended that the attack on Ms Amlot was not sexual and that no weapon was used. It is said that this was an isolated and spontaneous event which was out of character and about which Balci feels remorse. Reliance is further placed on the progress which Balci has made since he was transferred to an adult prison. He has completed a number of courses and has a reasonably good record of behaviour. He has said to have become more religious since being sentenced. Above all stress is placed upon the fact that the index offence was committed when Balci was only 20 years old.
10. I first have to decide, in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 21 to the 2003 Act, what should be the appropriate starting point. This is plainly not a case for a whole life order. Nor in my judgment does the seriousness of the offence of murder, even when considered in conjunction with the robberies which took place on the same night, qualify as “particularly high” within the meaning of paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 21. It is true that Sertan Balci has previous convictions for sexual offences and that on the night in question he removed or pulled down some of the victim's clothing. There was, however, no evidence of any actual interference with her private parts and I note that the learned trial judge expressed the view that it was unclear if Balci's motives were financial or sexual. In these circumstances I think it is right to proceed on the basis that the murder did not involve sexual conduct on Balci's part.
11. It follows that the appropriate starting point is 15 years.
12. I next have to consider the mitigating and aggravating factors surrounding the murder. The Judge identified, in my view rightly, the following mitigating factors: Balci's age (20 at the time of the offence); the fact that no weapon was used and the fact that the killing was not premeditated and that there was no intent to kill. I note that those factors are included in the list at paragraph 11 of Schedule 21 at (a), (b) and (g).
13. As to the potentially aggravating factors, it does not appear to me that any of the aggravating factors identified in paragraph 10 of the Schedule was present, although I acknowledge that Ms Amlot was a woman walking home alone late at night and so was in that sense vulnerable. I have also to bear in mind Balci's previous convictions and his apparent propensity on occasion to both violence and to sexual assaults.
14. Balancing the various factors and taking account of the progress and behaviour of Balci since he was sentenced, I have come to the conclusion that some modest reduction can be made to the 15 year starting point. I have decided that, subject to one qualification, the early release provisions contained in Section 269 of the 2003 Act should apply in Sertan Balci's case when he has served 12 years.
15. The qualification to which I have referred is that the term of 12 years should be reduced to take account of the 10 months 27 days which Balci has spent in custody.