Tariffs

14 December 2001 - 09.45
Court 4
Royal Courts of Justice

The decision of the Lord Chief Justice on tariff in the case of Andrew William Graham McVicar in accordance with the Practice Direction dated 27 July 2000 (The Times 9 August 2000)

1. Andrew William Graham McVicar was born on 24 April 1983. On the 26 August 1999 McVicar was convicted of murder and was sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. At the time of the offence McVicar was aged 15, the offence being committed on 24 December 1998.

2. On that date McVicar and a group of friends were standing by a Christmas tree when the victim walked by. One of the group thought the victim had said something which caused him to call the victim back. Eventually the victim did come back and they then squared up to each other as if to fight. Another youth tried to stop the fight but the defendant pulled him away. The victim then punched the man who had challenged him knocking him to his knees with a bloody nose.

3. The victim was doing nothing else when the defendant went behind him and struck him on the back of the head with a beer bottle which shattered cutting his head and severing the muscle on the right side of his neck. The victim then staggered and the defendant thrust the jagged neck of the bottle into the left side of his neck severing the jugular vein. The victim fell to the ground and lay motionlessly bleeding when the defendant kicked him three times before running off. The next day the defendant heard the victim had died and expressed some remorse to a witness but nonetheless went off to a rave that evening. The jury rejected defences of self-defence and lack of intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

4. Notwithstanding his youth, McVicar told the jury he was used to drinking large amounts and was well used to being drunk. He had findings of guilt for ABH, theft and burglary. He was cautioned for ABH on 18 September 1998 when he smashed a bottle on someone's head.

5. The trial judge considered he showed no remorse and his comments after sentence caused him to fear that he wanted to take revenge on prosecution witnesses, some who were as young as 14. The judge added that he thought it was likely that McVicar would re-offend and suggested that care should be taken to ensure he has given up all thoughts of revenge on prosecution witnesses to the incident, all of whom are well known to him, before he is released.

6. The trial judge indicated that if McVicar had been an adult he would have regarded the correct tariff as being 14 years but in view of his age he regarded 8 years as the correct figure. The then Lord Chief Justice agreed that 14 years term would have been appropriate for an adult but regarded the reduction suggested by the trial judge as being excessive. It was his view that 10 to11 years was called for. The Home Secretary has not set a tariff in this case.

Post-Conviction Behaviour

7. I have read the letter dated 7 August 200 from McVicar's solicitors and take the contents into account. I have also taken into account the letter written by McVicar himself.

8. While in custody McVicar has been the subject of four adjudication's since his arrival at Aylesbury YOI on 29 September 1999. They were for assaulting another young prisoner with a pool ball (14/11/99), abusive conduct towards a member of staff (2/2/01), fighting with another prisoner (27/4/01) and disobeying a lawful order (27/4/01). However, the head of casework has always found McVicar a polite young man who was trying hard to change his sometimes unacceptable behaviour. McVicar has taken a number of causes and is clearly trying to improve himself. However, he has still a considerable amount of maturing to do and has informed a member of the psychology team at the YOI that he would resort to violence if provoked and could not offer an alternative way of solving such a problem. However, the probation officer indicates that in the absence of any anger management course McVicar had completed 'anger-management work' by himself in his cell.

The Deceased's Family

9. The deceased's mother and two brothers are very angry about their brother's death. They feel the tariff recommendation are too low. The victim's mother has been ill since her son's death and has had to move home because of her memories attached to her former home. She believes McVicar should be in prison for life.

Conclusion

10. It is to be hoped that McVicar continues to improve while detained. Like the former Chief Justice and the trial judge I agree that 14 years would be an appropriate tariff for an adult. Having regard to McVicar's age I would recommend a tariff of 10 years, being the lower of the two figures mentioned by Lord Bingham. My view is that the tariff is appropriate at the present time.