Tariffs

Tuesday 19 February 2002 - 10.00 am
Court 4
Royal Courts of Justice

The decision of the Lord Chief Justice on tariff in the case of Norman David Bowen-Jones in accordance with the Practice Direction dated 27 July 2000 (The Times 9 August 2000)

1. Norman David Bowen-Jones was born on 22 November 1978. On 6 October 1997 at Teeside Crown Court Bowen-Jones and his co-accused, Alistair Dunn, were both convicted of murder and sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's Pleasure. Bowen-Jones was aged 17 at the time of the offence.

Facts of the Offence

2. The facts are taken from the report of the trial judge to the Home Secretary. For three years Bowen-Jones and his co-defendant had been inseparable companions. They had a homosexual relationship. They also had heterosexual sex lives, often engaging in intercourse with girls in each others presence. In 1996 they became friendly with the victim, a single woman by the name of Lesley Fox.

3. They frequently visited the victim's flat. They fantasised about having sexual intercourse with her, then killing her. On 12 October 1996 they did this. In addition, Dunn had anal intercourse with the victim, probably without her consent. Bowen-Jones strangled her with a piece of rope they had taken for the purpose. Dunn assisted at some stage with the strangulation. The victim was also suffocated by pillows pressed onto her face when unconscious. After her death, both took part in laying the victim out in a bizarre pose with a window pole inserted into her vagina and bedclothes and a vacuum cleaner placed on top of her upper body and face. No alcohol or drugs were involved at any stage.

4. The trial judge was of the view that although his co-accused was appreciably more intelligent than the older Bowen-Jones, they were equally culpable. The judge also expressed the opinion that this was a planned and cold-blooded killing for sexual gratification and, even though the psychiatric report on Bowen-Jones did not address risk, on the evidence, both Bowen-Jones and his co-accused must be regarded as very dangerous as they were entirely without remorse.

5. Bowen-Jones did not have any convictions at the time of the offence.

6. The trial judge recommended a tariff of 15 years for both defendants. The Lord Chief Justice recommended a slightly shorter term of 13 years in both cases to reflect the defendants' youth. The Home Secretary set Bowen-Jones' tariff at 13 years.

Post-conviction behaviour

7. I have read the various reports detailing Bowen-Jones' behaviour in prison. I note the following from those reports. He has always been well mannered and courteous. His behaviour has been described as mature and positive, even exemplary. He has assisted young inmates in writing letters and has worked alongside staff when problems arose. He achieved enhanced status at both institutions where he was held.

8. However, in a report that appears to be written sometime in 1997 and authored by the police advisor Commander MJ Gerrard, Bowen-Jones is described as highly mature and more intelligent than he professes to be. He is also described as cold, calculating and ruthless. It is predicted that because he respects authority, he will not disrupt the prison system. Concern is expressed about the pre-meditated nature of the offence, the report stating that there is a serious belief that he will kill again when released. In a report dated 11 March 1999 the personal officer Cox expresses a similar opinion; he states that whilst Bowen-Jones poses no threat to the prison population, he could be a threat to the public.

9. Bowen-Jones has consistently denied his offence. As a result he refuses to participate in any offence-related work, particularly the sex offenders treatment programme.

10. A schooling report (dated 20 November 2000) notes that he is not interested in education at the present. However, Bowen-Jones does work in the induction shop where he is highly thought of by his instructors. Representations on behalf of Bowen-Jones

11. I have read the representations made on Bowen-Jones' behalf by his solicitors Messrs Wilkins, dated 26 January 2001 and 15 December 2001. I have taken these representations into account in reaching my conclusion.

12. In particular I note that Bowen-Jones denies the statements made in Commander Gerrard's report, paraphrased in paragraph 8 above.

The Victim's Family

13. Written representations have been received from the victim's family. They are understandably traumatised and emotionally scarred. They express the view that Bowen-Jones and his co-accused should receive the maximum tariff due to the despicable circumstances of the crime and the lack of remorse shown.

Conclusion

14. I am not concerned with risk of future offending. It is the responsibility of the Parole Board to deal with this. Non the less the fact that Bowen-Jones has not admitted his part in the offence means that he has not been able to participate in certain programmes. In addition, he has not been able to demonstrate remorse in the same way as his younger co-offender has. He has however this apart been a model offender in custody and I consider this should be recognised by a reduction in his tariff to 12 years.