Affirmation of Stringent Sentencing for Firearm-Aggravated Murder: Owens v HM Advocate [2022] HCJAC 29

Introduction

The case of Jordan Ally Donald Owens versus Her Majesty's Advocate ([2022] ScotHC HCJAC_29) presents a significant examination of sentencing principles within Scottish criminal law, particularly concerning firearm-aggravated murder committed while on bail. This appellate judgment by the Scottish High Court of Justiciary addresses the appropriateness of the punishment part in a life sentence imposed on the appellant for the murder of Jamie Lee and the attempted murder of Joseph Lee.

Summary of the Judgment

On July 22, 2022, the Scottish High Court of Justiciary dismissed the appeal filed by Jordan Ally Donald Owens against the punishment part of his life sentence. Owens was convicted of two charges related to an incident on July 8, 2017: the aggravated murder of Jamie Lee and the attempted murder of Joseph Lee, both committed while Owens was on bail. The trial judge had sentenced Owens to life imprisonment with a punishment part of 23 years for the murder charge and concurrently imposed a 12-year sentence for attempted murder. Owens contested the severity of the 23-year punishment part, arguing for its reduction based on his age, lack of criminal history, and the nature of the offence. However, the appellate court upheld the original sentencing, citing consistency with recent legal trends and the need for deterrence in firearm-related offences.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key cases to contextualize and justify the sentencing approach:

HM Advocate v Morton Eadie and others: Set punishment parts ranging from 22 to 26 years for firearm-related murders.
HM Advocate v Christopher Hughes: Assigned a 25-year punishment part in a sophisticated organized crime murder case.
HM Advocate v Neil Anderson and Thomas Guthrie: Addressed sentencing adjustments for concurrent sentences and the influence of previous convictions.
Boyle v HM Advocate and Flynn v HM Advocate: Established a baseline punishment part of around 20 years for firearm-involved murders.
McDonald v HM Advocate: Demonstrated variations in punishment parts based on the specifics of firearm use.
Andonov v HM Advocate: Highlighted sentencing in cases involving hired gunmen and organized crime connections.
HM Advocate v William Paterson: Reinforced the 22-year punishment part for extensive firearm use in murder.

These precedents collectively emphasize a trend towards robust sentencing in firearm-related homicides, reflecting the courts' commitment to deterrence and public safety.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously evaluated whether the trial judge appropriately considered relevant factors in determining the punishment part. Key aspects of the legal reasoning include:

Aggravating Factors: Owens' actions were deemed premeditated due to his arming with a firearm and bulletproof vest, and his subsequent escape from the jurisdiction.
Age and Maturity: While Owens argued that his youth and personal circumstances suggested immaturity, the Court found that the significant aggravating factors outweighed these considerations.
Use of Firearm: The mere use of a firearm in committing murder is a critical factor necessitating a severe punishment part to deter similar offences.
Comparison with Precedents: The Court aligned the punishment part with established sentencing in similar cases, ensuring consistency and adherence to recent judicial trends.
Concurrent Sentences: The treatment of the attempted murder charge was considered appropriate and did not influence the decision to uphold the punishment part for the murder charge.

The Court concluded that the trial judge's decision was within the bounds of reasonable discretion, appropriately balancing the gravity of the offence with mitigating factors.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's stringent stance on firearm-related homicides, particularly those committed while the perpetrator is on bail. By upholding a 23-year punishment part, the Court underscores the importance of deterrence in violent crimes involving firearms. Future cases involving similar circumstances are likely to follow this precedent, ensuring that punishment parts reflect both the severity of the crime and the necessity of deterring firearm use in criminal activities. Additionally, the affirmation provides clarity on how factors such as age and minor criminal records are weighed against significant aggravating circumstances.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal terminologies and concepts within the judgment warrant clarification for better comprehension:

Punishment Part: This refers to the period a life-sentenced offender must serve before being eligible for parole. It is a determinate period set by the court based on factors like the severity of the offence and the offender's background.
Aggravated Murder: A murder committed under circumstances that increase its severity, such as the use of a weapon or committing the act while on bail.
Concurrent Sentences: When a defendant is sentenced to serve multiple sentences at the same time, rather than one after the other.
Life Imprisonment: A sentence where the offender is required to spend the rest of their life in prison, subject to the conditions of the punishment part for potential early release.
Remand in Custody: The period an accused person spends in jail while awaiting trial or sentencing.
Extradition: The legal process where one jurisdiction delivers a person accused or convicted of committing a crime in another jurisdiction, over to their law enforcement.

Conclusion

The High Court of Justiciary's decision in Owens v HM Advocate reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to imposing stringent sentences on firearm-aggravated murders, particularly those committed under circumstances indicating premeditation and deliberation. By upholding the 23-year punishment part, the Court emphasises the critical role of deterrence in violent crimes and maintains consistency with evolving legal precedents. This judgment not only reinforces existing sentencing frameworks but also provides clear guidance for future cases, ensuring that factors such as the use of firearms and the offender's conduct during the commission of the crime are judiciously weighed to uphold justice and public safety.