Tariffs

Friday, 4 May 2001Court 4
Royal Courts of Justice

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

Graham Roger Wallis was born on 29 July 1980. On the 7 May 1999 he was sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's Pleasure (Section 53(1) Children and Young Persons Act 1933) having pleaded guilty to the murder of Russell Crookes. Wallis's co-accused, Neil Andrew Sayers, born on 23 August 1979, pleaded Not Guilty but was found Guilty by unanimous verdict of the jury.

I am very conscious of the fact that Russell, the victim, was of course unable to give his account of the crime. However, I have to approach the question of setting a tariff against the background of what could be proved against Graham Wallis.

The Background Facts

Wallis and Sayers and Russell Crookes were resident students at Hadlow Agriculture College. Russell Crookes was a close friend of Sayers and Wallis. Sayers and Crookes had an obsessive interest in combat, war, survival and SAS techniques. To pursue this interest they used to make frequent visits at night to adjoining woodlands where they camped, lit fires and played out their fantasies in the company of Wallis. They styled themselves the "brotherhood" carrying ranks. Sayers was the emperor. Russell Crookes the Prime Minister and Wallis the tea-boy. Contrary to his ranking Russell Crookes grew in dominance. He began to humiliate Sayers in front of other college students. Wallis was the butt of both Sayers and Russell Crookes. Sayers decided that Crookes was getting on his nerves and had to go and he informed Wallis of this.

A plan was drawn up on the initiative of Sayers which resulted in Russell Crookes' death. His death was caused by his being stabbed 20 times. His body was partially burnt and buried in a shallow grave. In accordance with the plans, knives were acquired, barbecue fluid and wood were prepared and secreted in advance. Sayers led the stabbing and, of the 20 wounds, Wallis was likely to have inflicted about two or three wounds. The stabbing took place while Russell Crookes was pleading for his life.

The burial of the body took place after an interval of one day during which both Sayers and Wallis attended lectures. The body by then partially dismembered was dragged across a field. Sayers dug the grave but Wallis assisted. The post-mortem showed disfigurement to the face consistent with an intention to obscure the identity of the body. The role of Wallis was consistent with his rank as a "tea-boy". Both Wallis and Sayers pretended to participate in the search for Russell Crookes. Sayers in particular taking a leading role in laying a false trail.

During his trial, Sayers denied having anything to do with the killing. He suggested that Wallis was solely responsible. Wallis gave evidence against Sayers and Sayers said that he was doing so as an act of revenge.

In his comments, the trial judge Mr Justice Newman, drew attention to the age of the defendants, their respectable background, the petty nature of their motive for such a crime and the fact that the crime was executed with a chilling lack of emotion and thoroughness which required special considerations. The jury in the judge's view had correctly added a rider expressing concern about the lack of care at the college for 16 and 17 year olds.

Wallis had to a certain extent mixed with others but Russell Crookes and Sayers had marginalised themselves, fostering intolerant "fascist" attitudes fuelled by horror videos and a regime which left them free to do as they pleased and which was not alert to the depth of their isolation and failure to integrate. The judge agreed with the reports which were before him which concluded that in Sayers case there was a high risk of re-offending but that Wallis posed no future risk. The evidence indicated that Sayers was duplicitous, manipulative and lacking in remorse. Wallis, on the other hand, confessed on his arrest, gave evidence for the Crown and had shown signs of genuine remorse.

The trial judge's view of the length of detention necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and general deterrence for the offences was 12 years in the case of Wallis and 16 in the case of Sayers.

The then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, on the 19 May 1999 considered the tariff periods should be 14 to 15 years in the case of Sayers and 10-11 years in the case of Wallis. The Home Secretary has not fixed a tariff and will not do so now.

In the opinion of leading counsel, who acted on behalf of Wallis, forwarded to the Home Secretary by a letter from Wallis's solicitors dated 30 November 1999 the requirements of punishment and deterrence would be met by a tariff of not more than 10-11 years. In support of that conclusion, leading counsel referred to Wallis's youth, his unsolicited and voluntary full confession, the fact that he gave evidence for the Crown, which led to the conviction of his co-accused, and the inherent dangers to himself whilst in custody arising out of this, the fact that he was not the leader but "the tea-boy", his involvement was limited on all the evidence in respect of the actual stabbing, of two blows, neither of which was fatal or deep, his remorse, his frankness as to the crime and the fact that the jury's verdict indicated that they accepted his evidence and rejected the evidence of his co-accused.

Russell Crookes's father, in a letter of the 26 January 2001 draws attention to the following factors:

(i) Russell was a youth of 17 at the time enjoying his life. He was a kind and considerate person, "although a little shy, was very determined with his goals in life". He had achieved a distinction at college for his first year and had plans for his future.

(ii) The pre-meditated nature of the murder and the hypocrisy of Sayers and Wallis in purporting to assist with a missing-persons enquiry when in fact they were providing misleading information. In particular, Mr Crookes senior refers to an occasion when he was leaving Russell's room with other members of the family and Wallis and Sayers were sitting nearby and appeared to be laughing at them.

(iii) It was only after Wallis was arrested that he started to confess.

(iv) "Russell was an immense part of our family. The feeling of total loss has had a profound effect on all of us. You cannot begin to understand the grief that this has caused to lose someone so precious, who deserved to live his life and share that life with us, someone we could not even say goodbye to because of the state of his body."

(v) His wife is still in "total disbelief and despair at the loss". There is also the effect on Russell's sister, Sarah and his brother, Paul. There was also an effect on grandparents and other members of the family and friends. (Mr Crookes movingly described this as the "the ripple effect".)

(vi) Wallis was more deeply involved than the trial judge thought.

Wallis's Progress in Custody

The limited information available to me at this stage, shows that since his sentence was imposed Graham Wallis has made satisfactory and steady progress.

The Tariff

On the information before me I have come to the conclusion that the appropriate tariff is 10 years. This is equivalent to a determinate sentence of 20 years. After the period of 10 years Graham Wallis may be released on licence if it is considered that this would not constitute an unacceptable risk to the public. However, he remains liable to be detained for life and if he does not comply with the terms of the licence under which he is released or if he commits any further offence he can be recalled to custody. To this extent Graham Wallis will remain subject to his sentence for the rest of his life.