Williams, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty to offences including attempted murder, false imprisonment, wounding with intent, and assault by penetration. The offences involved two separate incidents: one at the home of the victims, a mother and her 14-year-old daughter, and another involving a different victim in a public area. The Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years by the Crown Court. The Solicitor General considers the minimum term unduly lenient and applied for leave to refer the case for review under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

The Appellant had a prior conviction for serious sexual offences and was released on licence before committing the current offences. The offences involved violent attacks with a knife, including stabbing and sexual assault, causing serious physical and psychological harm to the victims. The Appellant admitted the offences and showed some remorse. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent sentences for the offences alongside the life sentence with a minimum term for the attempted murder count.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the minimum term of 14 years imposed for the life sentence was unduly lenient given the gravity and circumstances of the offences.
2. How to appropriately reflect the totality of the offending, including multiple offences against multiple victims, in the minimum term.
3. The correct categorisation and sentencing range for the offences, particularly the assault by penetration count.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The minimum term of 14 years failed adequately to reflect the overall seriousness of the offending.
• The appropriate sentences under the guidelines would have been higher: 30 years for each attempted murder, 12 years for wounding with intent, and 8 years for assault by penetration (arguing it should be category 2A, not 2B).
• The aggravating features justified increases above the starting points of the guidelines.
• The minimum term did not properly incorporate all offences, especially those against the child victim.

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge had properly balanced all relevant factors and the minimum term was within the permissible range.
• The life sentence with a long minimum term already imposed was appropriate.
• The Appellant admitted guilt early and showed remorse, which warranted credit in sentencing.
• The Appellant's troubled childhood and history of abuse were relevant mitigating factors.
• Only one of the two attempted murder offences resulted in serious and lasting harm, justifying the judge’s approach to sentencing.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged the difficulty of the sentencing exercise, particularly given the complexity of the Sentencing Guidelines for attempted murder offences at the time. It agreed with the sentencing judge that a life sentence was necessary due to the Appellant’s dangerousness and the need to protect the public.

The Court accepted that some overlap existed between offences, cautioning against double counting. However, it emphasized that the minimum term must reflect the seriousness of the discrete offences, including two separate attempted murders committed against different victims in different locations, and the serious offences against a child.

The Court found that the sentencing judge’s starting point for the attempted murder offences was too low and that the total notional determinate sentence should have been well over 40 years before plea and mitigation credits. After considering mitigation and totality, the Court concluded the appropriate total determinate sentence should not have been less than 27 years, resulting in a minimum term of 18 years under the life sentence.

Accordingly, the Court determined the original minimum term of 14 years was unduly lenient and substituted it with an 18-year minimum term, leaving other sentences unchanged.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision is TO GRANT LEAVE TO REFER, QUASH THE ORIGINAL MINIMUM TERM, AND SUBSTITUTE A MINIMUM TERM OF 18 YEARS for the life sentence imposed for the attempted murder count.

The direct effect of this ruling is that the Appellant must serve a longer minimum term before becoming eligible for release on licence, increasing from 14 to 18 years. No adjustments were made to the concurrent sentences for other offences. The Court did not establish any new legal precedent but clarified the application of sentencing principles and the importance of adequately reflecting the totality and gravity of multiple serious offences in minimum term calculations.