Minimum Terms
Minimum terms set for young offenders by the Lord Chief Justice
29/11/02
10.00
Court 4
Royal Courts of Justice
The decision of the Lord Chief Justice on minimum term in the case of Christopher Jonathon Peterkin in accordance with the Practice Direction dated 27 July 2000 (The Times 9 August 2000)
1. Christopher Jonathon Peterkin was born on 13 March 1982. On 12 June 2000 he was convicted of the murder of Zardasht Draey and was sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. The offence was committed on 1 December 1999. At the date of the offence Peterkin was 17 years 9 months old.
2. The deceased (age 19) was attacked by two men at a bus stop in Lillie Road, Fulham in the early hours of the morning. The motive for the attack is not known. The deceased was knocked to the ground and then kicked and stamped on while on the floor. He died from severe head injuries without regaining consciousness.
3. Peterkin was convicted on the basis of DNA evidence linking him to the scene of the offence although he has denied being involved in the attack.
4. Following his conviction for the murder of the deceased, Peterkin pleaded guilty to a separate and unrelated charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. He received a sentence of 7 years detention for this offence, to run concurrently with his detention at Her Majesty's pleasure. The judge at the murder trial did not of course know the outcome of these other proceedings. He did state however that, had Peterkin already been convicted of that other offence, he would have recommended a higher tariff to reflect the increased assessment of Peterkin's dangerousness.
5. In the event, the judge recommended a tariff of 12 years.
6. From the limited information available, it appears that Peterkin's time in custody to date has been mixed. I have read the annual reports prepared by his personal manager and wing manager. He has received numerous minor reports and behaviour warnings and was initially extremely arrogant and argumentative. Things seem to have improved somewhat more recently. However, psychologist Natalie Wainwright notes that his access to many courses, jobs and classes has been restricted (as at the end of 2001) because of his behaviour, which has led to three adjudications.
7. I have read the report for Lifer Review Board written by Peterkin's field probation officer. This records that Peterkin continues to protest his innocence of the murder offence (though not the unrelated grievous bodily harm conviction). However, the report of psychologist Natalie Wainwright states that Peterkin does admit being at the scene of the murder, while denying involvement in the murder itself. He does not appear to show any remorse for either the murder (which he denies) or the grievous bodily harm (which he admits committing).
8. I have read the letters submitted by the deceased's uncle, setting out the effect this tragic death has had on various members of the victim's family. His view is that Peterkin should never be released. I have taken account of this in reaching my decision.
9. Although Peterkin is in the early stages of his sentence, there is no evidence that he shows any recognition of his offence or remorse for it. I am also mindful that the judge would have chosen a higher tariff in the event that Peterkin was convicted of the separate grievous bodily harm charge. In those circumstances I do not recommend any alteration to the minimum term. It is not part of my remit to review a minimum term upwards.