Tariffs

21 November 2001 - 09.45 am
Court 4
Royal Courts of Justice

The decision of the Lord Chief Justice on tariff in the case of Christine Marie Molloy and Maria Patricia Rossi in accordance with the Practice Direction dated 27 July 2000 (The Times 9 August 2000)

1. In March 1993 Marie Molloy and Maria Patricia Rossi pleaded guilty to murder and were sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure at Cardiff Crown Court before Mr Justice Scott Baker.

2. Regular drinking and drug taking was a pattern of the lives of both the offenders. They were heavy abusers of illicit drugs and alcohol.

3. The victim was a 70 old spinster. She was partially sighted and lived next door to Rossi. Molloy and Rossi were close friends. Molloy lived on the same estate as Rossi. The victim had suffered harassment from the Rossi family. Excrement and food were daubed on her windows. She was burgled by Rossi and Molloy, they made threats to kill her and they expressed the hope that she would move away or die. On the 16 July 1992 Rossi and Molloy attacked the victim. The injuries were horrific. There was severe mutilation. Her nose was broken and apparently an effort had been made to scalp her. There were at least 35 wounds to the face. Of 30 stab wounds, 18 had penetrated her chest cavity. After they had killed the victim they ransacked her home. At the time of the killing Molloy and Rossi were high on drink and drugs. The trial judge said he would not distinguish between the culpability of the offenders.

4. The trial judge recommended a tariff of 16 years in relation to each offender. The Lord Chief Justice recommended a tariff of 14 years. The tariff was initially set at 15 year for each offender. In the case of Molloy the tariff was re fixed at 13 years in January 2000; in the case of Rossi it was re fixed in March 1999 at the same figure.

Molloy

5. In January 2000 representations on behalf of Molloy were made by her solicitors. They referred to her deprived childhood and the significant change in her behaviour over the last three years. Molloy completed a number of courses and is working hard at her offending behaviour. She has taken advantage of the opportunities which she has had in custody and has obtained a number of qualifications. She has demonstrated a determination and commitment to remain drug-free. She now has a close and supportive relationship with her family.

6. A forensic psychological report concludes, "there has been a dramatic shift in Molloy's approach to her imprisonment. She's making great efforts to tackle her problems and avoid problems within prison." Her angry stance which had been present for many years has subsided. She has received an award from the Hardman Trust because of her exceptional behaviour. It records that she "is now one of the most articulate and respected inmates" at her institution. She has shown a real flair in graphic arts. A psychologist's report prepared on the instructions of her solicitors records that "if she continues to demonstrate her skills at dealing with frustration and handling negative emotions constructively then there is every reason to believe that she could go on to lead an ordinary life in the community as a responsible citizen." The main concern of the psychologist was whether Molloy would maintain her vigilance.

Rossi

7. On 5 June 2000 and on the 30 August 2001 Rossi's solicitors made representations on her behalf. They referred in detail to the changes in the law as to the fixing of the tariff of offenders detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. They referred also to the need for the tariff I set to take into account the removal of the previous practice of continuous monitoring and periodic assessment and to reflect the issues of the detainee's welfare. As to this last point, I should make it clear that I regard it as the responsibility of the Home Secretary to undertake any future monitoring which the law requires.

8. Initially Rossi did not make progress while in custody. A report dated 19 January 1998 states that her behaviour lately was acceptable but with room for significant improvement. The other papers before me do not disclose any material improvement. A report by the senior psychologist of the 30 of September does not regard her as yet ready for transfer to open conditions. The latest reports do, however, unlike in previous reports, indicate she is making progress in accepting her responsibility for the offence.

9. I have not received information as to any views of the family of the victim.

Conclusion

10. There is nothing in the papers before me indicating any grounds for reducing the tariff in the case of Rossi. That must remain at 13 years. Though I would hope that the Home Secretary will keep her case under review.

11. The position is different in the case of Molloy. There has been a marked difference in her behaviour over the last few years. There has already been one reduction in her tariff as there has been the case of Rossi. So far as their roles in the offences are concerned it is not possible to distinguish between the offenders, but this is not the position post-conviction. Because of the improvement in Molloy's conduct I am able to make a further modest reduction in her tariff of one year to 12 years.