Tariffs
10 May 2002 - 12.15
Court 4
Royal Courts of Justice
The decision of the Lord Chief Justice on tariff in the case of John Peter Mullen in accordance with the Practice Direction dated 27 July 2000 (The Times, 9 August 2000)
1. John Peter Mullen was born on 18 November 1976. On 26 November 1993 at Reading Crown Court Mullen was convicted of murder and was sentenced on be detained during Her Majesty's Pleasure. The offence was committed on 18 September 1992 at which time Mullen was 16 years of age.
2. Mullen had one co-defendant, Daniel Denis McCarten (date of birth 22 May 1976). McCarten was also convicted of murder and sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure.
Facts of the Offence
3. In the early evening of 18 September 1992 Simon Forwood, who was 17 years of age, had been assaulted by someone unconnected with his later murder that suspected that Forwood had stolen a motorbike. As a result, Forwood was angry and upset. Later the same evening, McCarten riding a stolen bike approached Forwood in Kennedy Park, Slough. Forwood kicked the bike McCarten was riding. McCarten then threatened that he would get Mullen to stab Forwood. Mullen had a reputation as a "Knife Man". All three youths lived on the Britwell housing estate in Slough.
4. Mullen and McCarten chased Forwood and stabbed him to death after an attack that included punches and kicks, jointly delivered. Two knives were used; one was a throwing knife belonging to Mullen that inflicted two deep, but not fatal wounds. A lock-knife that has never been recovered caused the fatal wound. There was no evidence as to which defendant inflicted the fatal wound.
5. Both Mullen and McCarten had been drinking, as had Forwood, but not to the extent that would have had any bearing on their responsibility and their actions.
6. The trial judge, Mrs justice Steel recommended a tariff of 15 years for Mullen and 12 for McCarten. The Lord Chief Justice recommended a lesser tariff of 13 years for Mullen and 10 years for McCarten due to the youth of the defendants, although he stated that the murder was a very deliberate joint killing.
7. The Secretary of State set the tariff for Mullen at 13 years.
8. Mullen had a previous conviction for taking without the owner's consent, theft, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and affray imposed at the Slough Juvenile Court on 9 July 1991.
9. The trial judge noted that Mullen was "very stupid and dangerous", displayed no emotion or remorse when awaiting trial and needed to be monitored by a psychiatrist whilst in custody.
Post Conviction Behaviour
10. Mullen had 35 adjudications in his first year at HMYOI Aylesbury and two adjudications in 1995 after his transfer to HMYOI Swinfen Hall. Mullen returned to HMYOI Aylesbury in February 1996 where a noticeable improvement in behaviour was noted earning him a place on the enhanced regime wing. The original transfer had been necessary due to a series of confrontations with staff and an escalating situation with a member of wing staff.
11. Mullen has had one adjudication only since arriving at HMP Maidstone on 8 May 1997. This was in March 1998 and was not of a serious nature. He was found in possession of phone cards that were not his.
12. The F75 Report from HMP Maidstone dated 1 September 1999 states that Mullen has "stagnated" over the 27 months that he has been at HMP Maidstone. The F75 Report also recommends a move to an establishment with better offending behaviour facilities.
13. According to the F75 Sentence Plan Report dated 19 July 1996 Mullen made good progress whilst attending the full time General Basic Studies course upon his return to Aylesbury from Swinfen Hall in February 1996. He passed the City and Guilds Numeracy course up to Level 4, the Royal Society of Arts Computer Literacy Stage I, the Associated Examining Board Achievement Test in Literacy Level Two and Three and the City and Guilds Wordpower Foundation Level and Numberpower Stage II.
14. Mullen was engaged as wing cleaner at HMP Maidstone and in 1999 at the same institution he attended the painting course studying for a NVQ qualification.
15. Mullen has completed a few offence-related courses including the Reason and Rehabilitation Course at Aylesbury and a Cognitive Skills Course. Mullen completed the Anger Management course at HMP Maidstone in August 1999. He was assessed and was found not suitable for the Alcohol Awareness course as he had no history of drink related problems and no identified alcohol problem. There has been no indication of any drug-related problems.
16. In the Post Sentence Report, dated 20 April 1994 and in the Berkshire Probation Service F75 Report dated 22 August 1996 Mullen accepted wounding Forwood but denied being guilty of murder. In the Personal Officer's F75 Board Report dated 23 August 1996 Mullen insists that the wounding was accidental and that McCarten was the main instigator and that McCarten and the police "stitched him up". Such was the conviction of unfair treatment and degree of animosity held by Mullen that it became necessary to remove McCarten from HMYOI Aylesbury. It is to be noted that while McCarten denies stabbing Forwood he admits that he was the catalyst for the offence.
17. The Psychologist's Report for F75 Board dated 22 August 1996 notes that Mullen has expressed regret for the death of Forwood and the distress caused to the victim's family however he is viewed as having only a limited insight into and understanding of his behaviour. This is seen as being exacerbated by his refusal to acknowledge that he has problems. Mullen also had difficulty in discussing the details of his offence without becoming hostile and defensive. He is perceived as having difficulty in controlling his temper and in establishing effective relationships with other people. Mullen still views the crime as an accident nor does this view appear to have changed at any point whilst in prison.
18. It is to be noted that since Mullen's transfer to HMP Maidstone there has been a dearth of lifer reports by any psychologist. A Memorandum from the Lifer Clerk at HMP Maidstone (date illegible) states that due to staff shortages the Psychology Department has been currently unable to provide lifer reports for reviews. This creates some difficulty in ascertaining whether there have been marked changes in Mullen's views as described above.
Representations on Behalf of Mullen
19. I have read the representations made on Mullen's behalf by Mr Bhatt Murphy. I have taken these into account in reaching my conclusions. There was no representation made by Mullen himself although such a representation would have been useful before reaching my conclusion.
The Views of the Deceased's Family
20. No representations have been received on behalf of the deceased's family. They are naturally still very traumatised by the offence.
Conclusion
21. I consider it important that there is an up to date psychology report before I come to a final decision in this case. However, on the information before me that tariff should be reduced at least to 12 years. There is a degree of disparity between the tariff of Mullen and his co-accused.