Jewell, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence by the Appellant, aged 20. Following a trial at the Crown Court before Judge Saini and a jury, the Appellant was convicted of the murder of the Victim and of possessing a bladed article in a public place contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The bladed article was the knife used to commit the murder. The Appellant was sentenced on 25 September 2023 for these offences and three other unrelated offences to which he had pleaded guilty.

The murder occurred on 28 January 2023 in a city centre location. The Appellant, who had been living rough and had befriended another homeless individual, obtained a locking knife the day before the offence, initially for bushcraft and self-protection. On the evening of the murder, after stealing bottles of vodka for resale, the Appellant intervened in a fight involving the Victim, who was also homeless and known for violence. During the altercation, the Victim attacked the Appellant with a broken bottle, causing injury. The Appellant then fatally stabbed the Victim with the knife. The Appellant did not flee but was later apprehended and the knife recovered with assistance from his companion.

Prior to the murder, the Appellant committed offences of unlawful wounding and criminal damage against his father in May 2021, for which he pleaded guilty. After the murder, while on remand, he assaulted a prison officer and pleaded guilty to that offence as well.

At sentencing, the judge imposed the mandatory life detention with a minimum term of 20 years minus time served for the murder. The starting point for the minimum term was 25 years, reduced to 19 years after mitigation and increased by one year to account for other offending. No separate penalty was imposed for the bladed article offence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the minimum term for the murder sentence was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020, rather than paragraph 5, affecting the starting point for the minimum term.
3. Whether the mitigating factors, including the Appellant's age and mixed reasons for possessing the knife, warranted a significantly lower minimum term.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the sentencing court could have applied paragraph 5 of Schedule 21, setting a 15-year starting point rather than 25 years under paragraph 4(1), which would have allowed for a lower minimum term after mitigation.
• The Appellant argued that his possession of the knife was for mixed purposes, including lawful ones such as bushcraft and self-protection, and that he did not anticipate violence that evening.
• He submitted that the mitigating factors, especially his youth and challenging background, should have had greater weight in reducing the minimum term.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court rejected the Appellant's first ground of appeal, emphasizing that the relevant inquiry was the purpose for which the Appellant took the knife to the scene on the day of the murder, not the original reason for acquiring it. The judge found that the Appellant carried the knife defensively to the scene of the expected disorder, which placed the case squarely within paragraphs 4(1) and 4(2) of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, mandating a 25-year starting point for the minimum term. This factual finding was unchallenged and binding.

Additionally, the court noted that the jury rejected the Appellant's defence of lawful possession of the knife in the public place, reinforcing the appropriateness of the starting point.

Regarding the second ground, the court found that all mitigating factors, including the Appellant's age, personal background, and lack of intent to kill, were properly considered by the sentencing judge. There was no error of principle or arguable basis to criticize the weight attributed to these factors or the resulting minimum term.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the sentencing judge's decisions were correct and that the appeal must be dismissed.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The direct effect is that the Appellant's sentence, including the minimum term of detention for life set at 20 years minus time served, stands as imposed. No new precedent was established by this decision.