Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 427 (QB)
Case No: 2004/378/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 -
THOMAS WESLEY PITT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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. Thomas Wesley Pitt stood trial at the Crown Court at Preston between 17 January and 27 March 2002 on the following charges: three counts of attempted murder; two counts of murder; two counts of conspiracy; one count of possessing firearms and ammunition with intent to endanger life and another count of supplying controlled class A drugs.
2. On 27 March 2002 Pitt was found guilty by the unanimous verdicts of the jury of all those charges, save that a not guilty verdict was returned in respect of one of the murder counts.
3. On the murder count of which Pitt was found guilty, he was sentenced by the trial judge, Sachs J, to the then mandatory life sentence of life imprisonment. The sentences passed in respect of the other counts were 20 years for the counts of attempted murder and 15 years imprisonment for the conspiracy counts, those sentences to be concurrent with the life sentence for murder.
4. After the trial, in accordance with the procedure which then applied, Sachs J recommended that the minimum term that Pitt should serve before being released should be 30 years. The then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, expressing the view that it was a very serious case, recommended a somewhat shorter term of 26 to 28 years.
5. Pitt is now 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 Schedule 22 of that Act for an order to be made under 269 as to whether, having regard to the seriousness of his offence, the early release provisions are to apply to him, and, if so, what part of his sentence should be specified in the order.
6. The facts of the case and the circumstances under which the murder was committed were in summary these: Pitt was the leader of a gang in a suburb of south Manchester, whose business was the sale of class A drugs. They were one of a number of gangs in the Manchester area at that time. There were frequent shootings between the rival gangs either to acquire territory from another gang or to protect their own territory. Such shootings had been going on for the better part of a decade before the instant offences were committed.
7. The conspiracies charged were over a period from 1 October 1999 to 4 December 2000. The murder, which was a murder by shooting, the weapon being a machine gun, was of a member of a rival gang. The attempted murders, which took place on the same night, also related to members of a rival gang. The gun was prone to jamming and the evidence was that it jammed on this occasion.
8. Pitt was undoubtedly the leader of his gang and the members were totally subservient to his wishes. He was a dominating and organising character. The gang had available to it a considerable number of weapons and ammunition and had ready access to cocaine and heroin, both of which drugs were supplied liberally on the streets of south Manchester.
9. The evidence revealed a number of incidents of violence to other members of the same gang by the use of weapons. There was also evidence of an appalling beating of a member of a rival gang which was accompanied by threats from Pitt to shoot the helpless victim. Pitt had a loaded weapon on this occasion.
10. Gangs of this kind have posed a huge social problem in the Manchester area and Pitt’s gang was no exception. It took a major police operation lasting over two years to bring Pitt and his associates to court. Six of his co-accused were convicted of both of the conspiracies; three others had pleaded guilty at one stage or another.
11. Pitt was born on 10 May 1977. He was therefore 22 years of age when the murder was committed. Sentencing Pitt, Sachs J observed, among other things, that Pitt had previous convictions for firearms and class A drug offences. He said that Pitt was clearly the leader of his gang and that his behaviour and that of his colleagues on the streets of Manchester involved openly shooting at their rivals. The Judge described Pitt as an infinitely cruel person who had displayed not an ounce of remorse or regret.
12. Solicitors acting for Pitt have indicated that he does not wish to make any representations in regard to the setting of the tariff. There is no Victim’s Family Statement in this case.
13. This is not in my judgment a case in which the appropriate sentence would be a whole life order. It is, however, a case where the seriousness of the index offence is particularly high. The murder involved the use of a firearm and it was committed for gain in the sense that, as I have said, it was a murder of a member of a gang of drug-dealers committed by the leader of a rival gang, either in order to acquire territory or to protect its own territory. In these circumstances the appropriate starting point is in my view 30 years: see paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 to the 2003 Act. It does not appear to me any more than it did to the trial judge, that there are any mitigating circumstances in this case. On the other hand I am not satisfied that any of the aggravating factors listed in paragraph 10 of the Schedule would justify an increase in the starting point beyond 30 years. The gravity of the offence is in my judgment sufficiently reflected in my conclusion that 30 years is the appropriate starting point.
14. I am obliged to ensure that the principle of retro-activity is not breached. My understanding is, however, that this is not a case where a tariff was set by the Secretary of State.
15. My decision on this reference is that, subject to one qualification, the early release provisions contained in section 269 of the 2003 Act should apply to Pitt when he has served 30 years.
16. The qualification to which I have referred is that the term of 30 years should be reduced to take account of the period of 11 months which Pitt spent in custody before being sentenced.