Turner, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

Two brothers, referred to as William and James Turner, pleaded guilty to the murder of an individual on 23 December 2014. William Turner additionally pleaded guilty to assault causing grievous bodily harm with intent against a second victim on the same date, while James pleaded not guilty to that charge. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment with a custodial period of 17 years before eligibility for release. William received a discretionary life sentence with a ten-year tariff for the assault charge. James appealed with leave granted, and William renewed his application for leave to appeal. Counsel for both appellants and the prosecution made written and oral submissions.

The trial judge's sentencing remarks detailed the factual background, including the consumption of alcohol and cocaine by the appellants, a violent assault on the second victim at a local bar resulting in permanent blindness in one eye, and a subsequent brutal attack on the deceased at his residence involving sustained violence, including stamping on the victim’s head and use of an electric guitar as a weapon. The deceased died from blunt force trauma and neck compression, with multiple severe injuries documented by forensic and medical evidence. The appellants left the victim without seeking medical assistance and attempted to destroy evidence.

William Turner had a history of 26 convictions, mostly minor and motoring offences, with a period of stability in his life noted. He had a harmful dependence on alcohol and cocaine and was under stress due to his mother’s terminal illness at the time of the offences. He admitted intent to commit violence but denied some aspects of the assault inconsistent with forensic evidence. He was assessed as a high risk of re-offending and serious harm.

James Turner had 85 previous convictions including violent offences. He suffered a serious brain injury in childhood with long-term cognitive and emotional effects. He expressed regret but attempted to minimize his role in the attack. He was assessed as presenting a high likelihood of re-offending and a significant risk of serious harm.

The victim impact report described profound emotional and psychological effects on the deceased’s family members.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in concluding that each appellant formed an intention to kill the deceased during the attack.
2. Whether the discount for the guilty pleas was adequate.
3. Whether the tariff periods imposed were appropriate given the circumstances and roles of each appellant.
4. Whether the evidence supported the conclusion that each appellant took turns stamping on the deceased.
5. Whether mitigating factors, including medical reports and prior conduct, warranted differentiation in sentencing between the appellants.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant William Turner's Arguments

• Challenged the conclusion that he formed an intention to kill during the attack.
• Contended that the discount for his guilty plea was inadequate given his admissions.
• Disputed aspects of the prosecution’s evidence, including the forensic interpretation of his actions.

Appellant James Turner's Arguments

• Denied involvement in stamping on the deceased, challenging the factual basis of that conclusion.
• Argued for mitigation based on his serious brain injury and cognitive difficulties.
• Contended that the tariff should be differentiated from his brother’s due to differing roles and circumstances.
• Asserted that the discount for his guilty plea should be reconsidered given he made no admissions at interview.

Prosecution's Arguments

• Asserted that both appellants intended to kill the deceased during the attack.
• Supported the trial judge’s imposition of tariff periods and sentence structure.
• Accepted that James Turner could not be fully advised until receipt of medical reports.
• Contended that the involvement of each appellant in the attack was significant and justified similar tariff periods.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the nature and severity of the attacks, noting the gratuitous violence, use of weapons, and the sustained and brutal nature of the assaults. It accepted the trial judge’s conclusion that both appellants formed an intention to kill the deceased during the attack, supported by the failure to summon medical assistance and the forensic evidence of stamping causing severe injuries.

The court reviewed the sentencing structure, recognizing that the trial judge first determined the appropriate tariff for murder and then considered the assault count separately, treating it as an aggravating factor for William Turner. The court found this approach appropriate and consistent with legal principles.

Regarding the discount for guilty pleas, the court analyzed relevant jurisdictional guidance and precedents, particularly the limits on reductions in murder cases to avoid disproportionately short custodial periods. It rejected the argument that tariff periods should receive a greater discount than determinate sentences, emphasizing the unique nature of life sentences with tariffs and licence periods.

For William Turner, the court found the discount given (estimated between 15% and 20%) appropriate, considering his partial admissions, initial denial, and attempts to pervert justice. For James Turner, who made no admissions at interview and sought to minimize his role even after pleading guilty, the court concluded that a lesser discount was justified and reduced his tariff from 17 to 15 years accordingly.

The court acknowledged James Turner’s brain injury and cognitive impairments but found these did not provide sufficient mitigation for the nature of the offence. It also accepted that the evidence did not conclusively support the finding that James took turns stamping on the deceased, but this did not materially affect the sentencing given his involvement in the attack.

Holding and Implications

The court refused leave to appeal in the case of William Turner, affirming the sentence including the tariff period and discount for guilty plea.

The court allowed the appeal in the case of James Turner, reducing his tariff period from 17 years to 15 years to reflect appropriate discounting and differentiation in sentencing.

The decision directly affects the custodial periods of the appellants but does not establish new precedent beyond clarifying the application of discounts for guilty pleas in murder cases within the jurisdiction. The court emphasized careful judicial consideration of discounts for guilty pleas, particularly in complex and fact-sensitive cases involving life sentences.