Minimum terms
High Court setting of minimum terms for mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 2346, 2347, 2348 (QB)
Case No: MTS / 718 / 719 / 720 / 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 29th September 2006
Before:
THE HON. MR JUSTICE JACKSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
REGINA
- and -
RANGZAIB DAD AKHTAR, RAEES KHAN, RASHID ZAMAN
R v RASHAD ZAMAN, RANGZAIB DAD AKHTAR, RAEES KHAN
JUDGMENT
1. Between October and December 2001 the defendants, to varying degrees, were engaged in a series of car thefts. On the night of 29th – 30th December 2001 they went on an expedition to steal a valuable car. They selected a RAV4 car, parked in Cow Lane on the outskirts of Halifax.
2. Khan forced the door lock with a screwdriver. Once inside, he ripped out the ignition wiring and attempted to start the car. This attempt was unsuccessful, because the battery was flat. Akhtar was keeping lookout nearby. Kevin Jackson, the son-in-law of the car owner, came out. He chased Akhtar and Khan down the road, and succeeded in catching Khan. Akhtar returned to join the fight. Zaman (who had probably been sitting in the getaway car nearby) also came and joined the fight.
3. During the struggle Khan plunged his screwdriver up to the hilt into the left side of Mr Jackson's head. On the medical evidence, Mr Jackson must have collapsed unconscious very quickly after this.
4. It appears from the medical evidence that Khan must have inflicted a number of cuts and abrasions to Mr Jackson's head and upper body with the screwdriver, before he struck the fatal blow. There were also some other cuts and bruises, not inflicted with the screwdriver. These were probably caused by blows or kicks from Zaman and Akhtar.
5. The defendants fled, leaving Mr Jackson lying in the road. Mr Jackson never regained consciousness. He died in hospital on 1st January 2002.
6. All three defendants stood trial at the Leeds Crown Court during November and December 2002 on a charge of murdering Mr Jackson and a variety of charges under the Theft Act 1968. All three defendants either pleaded guilty or were found guilty by the jury of some (but not all) of the offences under the Theft Act 1968. All three defendants pleaded not guilty to murder, but were convicted of that offence by the jury.
7. On the date of the murder Zaman was aged 20 years 11 months, Akhtar was aged 19 years 6 months and Khan was aged 20 years 1 month.
8. On the date of conviction Zaman and Khan were both aged 21. Akhtar was aged 20 years and six months.
9. On the 20th December 2002 at the Leeds Crown Court I sentenced Zaman and Khan to life imprisonment and Akhtar to custody for life.
10. On the 26th November 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed Khan's appeal against conviction and the applications by Zaman and Akhtar for leave to appeal against conviction.
11. Since the murder of Mr Jackson occurred before 18th December 2003, this case falls within the transitional arrangements set out in Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“the Act”). Zaman, Khan and Akhtar are all “existing prisoners” within the meaning of schedule 22. They have not received notification from the Secretary of State pursuant to paragraph 2 of the schedule. Accordingly paragraph 6 of schedule 22 applies to all three prisoners.
12. The Secretary of State has referred the cases of Zaman, Akhtar and Khan to me for the setting of tariffs pursuant to section 269 (2) of the Act.
13. I have considered all the material sent to me, including the representations on behalf of Zaman and Khan. No representations have been submitted on behalf of Akhtar. I do, however, have a transcript of the submissions in mitigation made by Mr Thomas QC on behalf of Akhtar on 20th December 2002 and have taken these into account.
14. In setting these tariffs, I must have regard to the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Sullivan, Gibbs, Elener and Elener [2004] EWCA Crim 1762; [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 308. My first task is to select the appropriate starting point by reference to schedule 21 of the Act. It is arguable that this was a murder “done for gain”, in that it was committed in the course of attempted car theft. On the other hand, the theft had proved impossible (since the car battery was flat); the defendants' motivation at the time of the struggle was not to make any “gain” but to escape. After some hesitation, I have come to the conclusion that this case does not fall within paragraph 5 (2) of schedule 21. No other limb of that paragraph could apply. Therefore the starting point is 15 years.
15. If I am wrong in my conclusion in the previous paragraph, such error cannot affect the final outcome. This is for two reasons. First, because this case lies at the outer fringe of paragraph 5 (2) (c) of schedule 21, a substantial reduction from the starting point of 30 years would be necessary. Secondly, the operation of paragraph 10 of schedule 21 would bring the tariff period down to that which is set out at the end of this judgment.
16. The next step is to consider what adjustments should be made to the starting point, having regard to aggravating and mitigating factors.
17. In Zaman's case there are the following aggravating circumstances: this was a case of killing when attempting to escape after an attempted car theft. The three defendants outnumbered the victim and inflicted several blows or kicks upon him, which were separate from the fatal injury. There are the following mitigating circumstances: youth; no intention to kill; lack of premeditation; no previous convictions; Zaman was the last of the three to join in the fight and did not strike the fatal blow. In my view, after considering all the circumstances, the proper tariff in Zaman's case is 15 years.
18. In Akhtar's case there are the following aggravating circumstances: this was a case of killing when attempting to escape after an attempted car theft. The three defendants outnumbered the victim and inflicted several blows or kicks upon him, which were separate from the fatal injury. There are the following mitigating circumstances: youth (Akhtar was the youngest of the three defendants); no intention to kill; lack of premeditation; no previous convictions; Akhtar was the second of the three to join in the fight and did not strike the fatal blow. In my view, after considering all the circumstances, the proper tariff in Akhtar's case is 15 years.
19. In Khan's case there are the following aggravating circumstances: this was a case of killing in the course of attempting to escape after an attempted car theft. The three defendants outnumbered the victim and inflicted several blows or kicks upon him, which were separate from the fatal injury. Khan used the screwdriver as a weapon and inflicted the fatal blow. There are the following mitigating circumstances: youth; no intention to kill; lack of premeditation; very low IQ (as became apparent during the trial). In my view, after considering all the circumstances, the proper tariff in Khan's case is 15 years.
20. In other words, I have concluded in respect of each defendant that no adjustment, either upwards or downwards, should be made to the starting point of 15 years.
21. The next step is for me to consider what tariff would have been fixed by the Secretary of State under the practice which was followed before December 2002. This will be a cap upon the period which the court can now order: see paragraph 10 of schedule 22 and paragraph 23 of the Court of Appeal's judgment in Sullivan. In determining what tariff would have been fixed by the Secretary of State, I must have regard to the letter which Lord Bingham CJ sent to judges on 10th February 1997.
22. According to Lord Bingham's letter, the starting point for an “average”, “normal” or “unexceptional” murder was 14 years. This figure is then adjusted upwards or downwards according to the circumstances. In my view, this was overall slightly worse than an “average”, “normal” or unexceptional” murder. Taking into account the matters set out in paragraphs 17 – 19 above, that 14 year starting point should be adjusted upwards to 15 years in the case of each defendant.
23. In a report to the Secretary of State dated 16th January 2002 I recommended a tariff of 15 years for each defendant, albeit for different reasons in each case. In my view, if the Secretary of State had notified minimum terms for the three defendants, it is likely that he would have notified minimum terms of 15 years for each defendant in accordance with the recommendations of the trial judge.
24. Zaman spent 11 months 3 days in custody on remand. Akhtar spent 10 months 15 days in custody on remand. Khan spent 10 months 12 days in custody on remand. Under paragraph 4 (1) (b) of schedule 22 the whole of those periods spent on remand should be deducted for the purpose of setting the minimum terms.
25. For the reasons set out above I determine that the provisions of section 28 (5) – (8) of the Crime Sentences Act 1997 (the early release provisions) are to apply to Zaman as soon as he has served a term of 14 years and 28 days.
26. For the reasons set out above I determine that the provisions of section 28 (5) – (8) of the Crime Sentences Act 1997 (the early release provisions) are to apply to Akhtar as soon as he has served a term of 14 years and 47 days.
27. For the reasons set out above I determine that the provisions of section 28 (5) – (8) of the Crime Sentences Act 1997 (the early release provisions) are to apply to Khan as soon as he has served a term of 14 years and 50 days.
Zamantariff3