REGINA v Noye

Factual and Procedural Background

On 14 April 2000, in the Crown Court at Maidstone before Judge Latham and a jury, the Defendant, a professional criminal, was convicted of the murder of the Victim and sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommended minimum term of sixteen years. The Defendant renewed an application for leave to appeal against a decision made by Judge Simon on 25 June 2010, which upheld the original minimum term recommendation. This renewed application was made 19 months out of time and had previously been refused leave to appeal by Judge Rafferty in October 2010. A separate appeal against conviction was dismissed following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, without addressing the sentencing issue.

The core factual dispute concerns whether the sixteen-year minimum term should be reduced to reflect the Defendant's nine-month detention in custody in Spain before extradition to the United Kingdom. The Defendant was arrested in Spain in August 1998, having fled the UK after the murder. He contested extradition, which prolonged his detention abroad. The original trial centered on whether the Defendant acted in self-defense during the killing, with the judge concluding that the Defendant deliberately used a knife, despite prior knowledge of its potential lethality.

Following the murder, the Defendant took deliberate steps to mislead authorities, including destroying the vehicle used and fleeing the country using false documents. The extradition process involved legal challenges and appeals, which were ultimately unsuccessful.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sixteen-year minimum term of imprisonment should be reduced to account for the Defendant's nine-month period in custody in Spain awaiting extradition.
2. How the court should exercise its discretion under statutory provisions concerning credit for time served abroad pending extradition, especially where the Defendant resisted extradition.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory framework governing credit for time served abroad pending extradition, initially under section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and subsequently under sections 240, 243, and 269(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It acknowledged that while courts normally grant some credit for such time served, discretion exists to refuse credit if it would be unjust.

The court emphasized that the Defendant deliberately fled the jurisdiction, actively resisted extradition proceedings, and gave false evidence to avoid extradition. Given these facts, the court found no justification to alter the original minimum term recommendation made by Judge Latham, which had already considered these circumstances. The court noted that the statutory language supports refusing any discount where the defendant's conduct abroad was designed to evade justice.

Accordingly, the court upheld the previous decisions denying any reduction for time spent in custody in Spain.

Holding and Implications

The application for leave to appeal against the minimum term was refused.

The court's decision means that the Defendant's sixteen-year minimum term remains unchanged, with no allowance for the nine months spent in custody abroad. This outcome confirms the principle that defendants who deliberately evade justice and resist extradition may not receive credit for time served in foreign custody. No new precedent was established; rather, the court reaffirmed existing legal principles and the appropriate exercise of judicial discretion in such cases.