Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Case No: MTS / 100 - 103 / 2004
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 1126 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
24TH MAY 2006
Before:
MR JUSTICE CRESSWELL
Between:
Regina
V
ALEXANDER ROBERT AMIES
CARL JOHN ELLIS
RICHARD GRAHAM KITE
LEIGHTON RYDER
JUDGMENT
1. These cases have been referred to the High Court for a minimum term to be set. I have considered these cases under Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The provisions of section 28 (5) to (8) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (the release provisions) are to apply as follows.
Carl John Ellis as soon as he has served 15 years.
Richard Graham Kite 16 years.
Alexander Robert Amies 12 years.
Leighton Ryder 12 years.
The above terms should be reduced in each case to take into account the period of 12 months, 7 days spent in custody on remand in each case. The reasons for my determinations are set out in this judgment.
2. I have regard to the written submissions made on behalf of Ellis, Kite and Ryder and to the reports referred to therein.
3. The description of the offence of murder and the circumstances in which it was committed were summarised by the trial judge as follows: -
“On the night of Saturday 20/Sunday 21 May 2000, the four defendants were responsible for the murder of Stephen Hilton, d.o.b 27.2.65, in Masefield Drive, Tamworth, Staffordshire. Hilton married Lesley (Lee) in 1996 and in the months leading up to his death the marriage had broken down, to the extent that in the week commencing 15 May, he left the matrimonial home. Lesley Hilton then transferred her affections to the defendant Kite, who had been a mutual friend of the Hiltons. This generated jealousy between Stephen Hilton and Kite and led eventually to the death of Stephen Hilton, as Kite was intent on a show of strength through a fight.
About 9pm Saturday 20 May, Lesley Hilton together with Kite and Ryder went to the Barge and Barrel public house in Tamworth, (events in the public house were filmed on a security video), where they met up with the defendants Ellis and Amies, who had been drinking there most of the afternoon. Ellis was employed as the bar manager and was quite drunk. During the evening abusive telephone calls and text messages were passed between the defendants, Lesley Hilton and the deceased. About 10.20pm the defendant Ryder and another female member of the group left the public house for a short time. As they returned Ryder received an abusive text message on his mobile phone from the deceased, which was intended for Kite. The message was shown to Kite and Ellis and it was at this stage that it was decided to arrange a fight with the deceased. Ellis took control of the situation and shouted out in the lounge bar, “The fight's set one hour's time. Wiggington Rugby Club.” The other defendants shouted, “Yes.” Ellis and Kite continued to drink before getting into Amies' black Ford XR2 which was to take all four defendants to the fight at the rugby club.
On arrival at the rugby club further phone calls were made and the defendants Amies and Ryder set off in the car to search for Stephen Hilton, as Ryder could positively identify him. Ellis and Kite remained at the rugby club. Amies and Ryder drove along Masefield Drive where they located Stephen Hilton walking with another man. On having Hilton pointed out to him, Amies shouted out in a threatening tone, “Wiggy Park. Now!” They returned to the rugby club where they collected Ellis and Kite and drove back to Masefield Drive, where the group split up. Ellis, Amies and Ryder went towards Stephen Hilton and Kite went the wrong way. Ryder called out to Hilton, and all three ran towards him. Ellis reached him first and, on his own admission, struck him two or three times to the face with his clenched fist and Hilton fell to the ground. There followed a sustained attack by punching and kicking to the head of the deceased by all these three defendants together. A member of the public intervened but was told by Amies that he should send for an ambulance. The defendants walked away, returning a few moments later with Kite, who began punching and kicking the defenceless body of the deceased. Amies was sent by Ellis to collect the car while the attack continued. When the car returned Ellis and Ryder attempted to pull Kite towards it but he broke away from them on at least two occasions to continue attacking the deceased. Eventually all four defendants left the scene at speed in Amies' car. All four were arrested in the car a short time later. Amies was breathalysed and found to be 'twice over the limit'.
The deceased was given first aid at the scene by paramedics but his condition deteriorated in the ambulance. By the time of arrival at the hospital his heart had stopped. Despite attempts at resuscitation by the hospital staff he was certified dead at 1.30am, Sunday 21 May, 2001.
A post mortem examination later that day revealed the following injuries to the deceased:
a) three freshly missing teeth
b) a fractured nose
c) fractures to the 4th and 5th ribs
d) fractures to the left and right side of the mandible
e) the maxilla was fractured completely away from the base of the skull
f) 2 sub-arachnoid haemorrhages, to the left and right of the head
g) extensive bruising to the head and face, consistent with about 22 separate blows
h) a deep 15cm long laceration to the liver, almost separating it into 2 parts. 2 ½ litres of blood were in the peritoneal cavity. This injury was caused by severe compressive force, such as stamping or jumping. This injury, and the consequent internal bleeding caused death.
The defence called evidence which doubted that the liver injury could have been caused at either stage of the attack. The suggestion being that the liver had been severed by CPR performed at the hospital. Since Hilton's heart was asystole within minutes of arrival in hospital, this limb of the 'defence' was hopeless. Even if established, it is hard to envisage how a jury could not have found that the extensive injuries (as above) were a significant cause of death. I entertain no doubt that the liver injury was caused during the assault by Kite.”
4. The trial judge summarised the aggravating and mitigating factors as follows: -
“Aggravation: Joint attack orchestrated by Ellis but at Kite's original instigation. The joint intention to attack was formed between 10.40 and 11.00pm and persisted in until about 12.20am the following morning. The attack(s) were (truly) described by two eyewitnesses as being ferocious. This was no over-statement. The attack(s) continued long after Hilton had become insensible and helpless. They were brutal and cowardly in the extreme. Amies and Ryder were swept up by the enthusiasm exhibited, and seen by several witnesses, in the public house and from the rugby club. Although Kite and Ryder expressed some remorse, its otherwise effect of mitigation is tempered, if not extinguished, by the nature of the defences run, which were that Kite struck but one blow and delivered no kick. Ryder claimed he had neither struck nor kicked Hilton. He probably did both.
Mitigation: Age (all)
Lack of previous relevant convictions (all).
Ryder (alone) towards the end of the incident attempted to curtail it.”
5. The terms set under section 269 (2) of the 2003 Act must not be greater than those which under the pre December 2002 practice the SSHD would have been likely to set.
6. In considering the seriousness of the offence I have had regard to the general principles in schedule 21 (principles to be applied to offenders sentenced after 18.12.03) and to the recommendations as to minimum terms made by the trial judge (16 years, 17 years, 12 years and 12 years respectively) and by the Lord Chief Justice (15 years, 16 years, 12 years and 12 years respectively).
7. Where the murder was committed before 31 May 2002 the best guide to the pre December 2002 practice is in Bingham C J's letter of 10.2.97 (set out at paragraphs IV.49.18 – 21 of the Practice Direction issued 29.7.04).
8 I have taken as the starting point 14 years. I have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the minimum term. In addition to the mitigating factors identified by the trial judge I have had regard to the following additional mitigating factor – an intention to cause serious bodily harm rather than to kill.
9. In reaching these determinations I have not overlooked the evidence of good progress made in custody (to the extent that it is available).