Last & Ors v R

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion consolidates five appeals concerning defendants who pleaded guilty to murder and were sentenced to life imprisonment. The cases address the determination of the minimum term to be served before eligibility for release on licence by the Parole Board. The opinion traces the evolution of sentencing practice, particularly following legislative changes introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which transferred the responsibility for setting minimum terms from the Home Secretary to the judiciary, requiring judges to announce minimum terms in open court.

The cases involve diverse factual backgrounds, including a planned murder involving multiple offenders, a stabbing following a personal dispute, a murder by a public service vehicle driver, and a fraternal pair involved in a robbery and killing. Each defendant pleaded guilty, and the appeals challenge the minimum terms imposed or seek review of sentence length.

Legal Issues Presented

1. How should the minimum term for life imprisonment be determined for defendants who have pleaded guilty to murder, in light of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and related guidelines?
2. What is the appropriate extent of reduction in the minimum term to reflect a guilty plea in murder cases, considering statutory provisions and sentencing guidelines?
3. How should aggravating and mitigating factors, including the timing and circumstances of the guilty plea, influence the setting of minimum terms?
4. What is the application and effect of transitional provisions (Schedule 22 of the 2003 Act) for offences committed before the Act’s commencement?
5. Are the minimum terms imposed in the individual appeals justified and proportionate given the facts, statutory starting points, and sentencing principles?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• In the appeal of the first appellant, it was contended that the minimum term was manifestly excessive given the similarities in offending with a co-defendant who received a lower sentence and the appellant's age and remorse.
• In the second appeal, it was argued that the judge should have applied a further reduction from the stated starting point due to mitigating factors including lack of planning, intention to cause grievous bodily harm rather than kill, youth, and personality disorder.
• In the appeals of the brothers, submissions were made that the starting points were too high, insufficient credit was given for early guilty pleas, and the draft guidelines should have been applied.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Crown acknowledged the entitlement of the first appellant to the full discount for an early guilty plea but maintained the uplift in sentence was justified by the crime’s seriousness.
• In the second appeal, the Crown contended that aggravating factors, including the use of a weapon and previous convictions, justified the sentence imposed.
• In the third appeal, the Solicitor General argued that the minimum term was unduly lenient and failed to reflect the gravity of the offence, aggravating features, and public interest.
• In the appeals of the brothers, the Crown supported the starting points and reductions applied, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and prior convictions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Anderson v DPP [2003] IAL 837	Transfer of responsibility for setting minimum terms from Home Secretary to judiciary.	Foundation for the legislative changes under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 affecting minimum term determinations.
R v Sullivan & Others [2004] EWCA Crim 1762	Guidance on the approach judges should adopt in setting minimum terms under the 2003 Act.	Used as leading authority for applying statutory provisions and Practice Directions to minimum term setting.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized the statutory framework established by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which requires judges to determine minimum terms in open court, replacing the previous role of the Home Secretary. It highlighted the importance of statutory starting points and the need to consider aggravating and mitigating factors, including the effect of a guilty plea.

The court discussed the statutory provisions governing reductions for guilty pleas, particularly section 152 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and its replacement provisions in the 2003 Act. The Sentencing Guidelines Council's guidance on reductions for guilty pleas was also considered, noting that reductions should be proportionate to the stage at which the plea is entered, with a sliding scale from a maximum of one-third for early pleas to a minimum for late pleas.

For murder cases, the court recognized the unique nature of life sentences and minimum terms, noting that reductions for guilty pleas have a greater impact on time served than in determinate sentences. The court set a maximum reduction of one-sixth (or five years for longer minimum terms) for guilty pleas at the first reasonable opportunity, with smaller reductions for later pleas.

The court addressed the transitional provisions for offences committed before the 2003 Act came into force, ensuring that minimum terms do not exceed what would have been set by the Home Secretary under prior practice. It relied on Practice Directions and previous case law to interpret these transitional rules.

In applying these principles to the individual appeals, the court examined the facts, starting points, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the timing and nature of the guilty pleas. It assessed whether the minimum terms imposed were justified and proportionate, allowing some appeals in part by adjusting minimum terms to reflect appropriate credit for guilty pleas, and dismissing others where the sentences fell within acceptable ranges.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the appeal of the first appellant in part, reducing the minimum term from 18 years and 97 days to 15 years and 97 days to reflect appropriate credit for an early guilty plea.

The appeal of the second appellant was dismissed, with the court holding that the minimum term of 12 years (less time served) was within an acceptable range given the facts and mitigating factors.

The application by the Solicitor General for leave to refer the sentence of the third appellant was granted, and the court increased the minimum term from 12 years to 20 years, finding the original sentence unduly lenient.

The appeals of the two brothers were dismissed, with the court concluding that the minimum terms imposed were justified by the seriousness of the offence, prior convictions, and relevant mitigating factors.

The decisions clarify the approach to setting minimum terms for murder convictions following guilty pleas under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, emphasizing judicial discretion guided by statutory starting points, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the timing of guilty pleas. The court reaffirmed that reductions for guilty pleas in murder cases are capped and must reflect the seriousness of the offence, ensuring sentences are just and proportionate. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory and guideline frameworks.