Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior number sentencing - murder - attempted murder

[2022]JRC168

Royal Court

(Samedi)

11 August 2022

Before     :

Sir John Henry Boulton Saunders, Commissioner, and Jurats Ramsden, Pitman, Christensen, Dulake, Austin-Vautier, Averty, Hughes and Le Heuzé.

The Attorney General

-v-

Rickie Michael Tregaskis

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded following conviction at Assize trial on 6^th May, 2022, on the following charges:

1 count of:	Murder (Count 1).
1 count of:	Attempted murder (Count 2).

Age:  53

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

The defendant was sentenced for the murder of Barbara Griffin and the attempted murder of her elderly aunt, Emma Anton.

 

On 2^nd August 1990, Ms Griffin was killed by a single stab wound through the heart with a knife after the Defendant broke into her home in the early hours of the morning.  Moments earlier he stabbed Ms Anton at least six times.

 

In 1991, the defendant was acquitted of murder and attempted murder at trial. 

 

In 2018, the Court of Appeal quashed the acquittals and ordered a re-trial, on the basis of new evidence having come to light (confessions to the crimes, made to friends and associates over the years since 1990).

 

The defendant was convicted at the re-trial in May 2022.

Details of Mitigation:

Fact offences committed in 1990.  Defendant's current poor health.  Age of Defendant at time of offences (21).

Previous Convictions:

139 criminal convictions dating back to 1982, including a previous conviction for murder, and a number of offences of serious violence.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	Mandatory life sentence (minimum period to be determined)
Count 2:	13 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	Life imprisonment with a minimum period of 20 years.
Count 2:	15 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

M Jowitt K.C., Her Majesty's Solicitor General assisted by M. R. Maletroit Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. C. L. Morley-Kirk for the Defendant assisted by Advocate M. P. Bootham.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        These were horrific offences as is clear from the evidence given at the trial and the summary given by the Solicitor General today.

2.        In the early hours of the morning of 2^nd August 1990, the Defendant broke into a flat on the Le Geyt estate.  There were two occupants of the flat at the time who were both in bed.  The flat was the home of Barbara Griffin who was at the time 59 years of age.  Staying in the flat with Barbara Griffin was her Aunt Emma Anton who was 84 and was visiting from Paris.  Barbara Griffin had three grown up children but they had left home by the time of this offence.

3.        Rickie Tregaskis was 21 and had already been convicted on a large number of occasions of offences of dishonesty and had served sentences of imprisonment.  He had also been convicted of one serious assault in 1988 for which he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

4.        Once in the flat he attacked Emma Anton as she lay in bed.  She had been asleep but was woken by the noise of the defendant breaking in.  He attacked her while she lay in bed, hitting her as she struggled to protect herself.  Although Emma Anton did not realise it the defendant was hitting her with a knife which he had brought in with him when he broke into the flat.

5.        Emma Anton screamed for help and her screams drew the attention of her niece Barbara Griffin who was also asleep at the time in the flat.  Barbara Griffin bravely came to her aunt's assistance attacking the defendant with something which was probably a pool cue case.  Barbara Griffin's intervention and bravery almost certainly saved her aunt's life but in the course of doing so she lost hers because the Defendant stabbed her once in the heart.  She survived long enough to ring for help but despite the prompt attention of the ambulance and help from the medics at the hospital who did everything they could to save her, they were unable to do so.

6.        Emma Anton did survive and lived until the age of 102, but no doubt the memory of the attack on her and the death of her niece affected her for the remainder of her life.

7.        We have read moving victim impact statements from two of Barbara Griffin's children who were greatly affected by the death of their mother and have had to wait a very long time for the killer to be brought to justice.

8.        That has only been made possible by the abolition of the double jeopardy rule in Jersey in 2019 which then allowed for the re-trial of acquitted defendants in certain circumstances.

9.        After his acquittal in 1991 the Defendant went onto commit many more criminal offences and particularly offences of violence culminating in his conviction for murder at Truro Crown Court in July 1999 for kicking to death a stranger for some reason which does not appear to be entirely clear.

10.      The Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period to serve of 20 years minus the days spent in custody awaiting trial.

11.      That minimum term has now elapsed but the parole board has not released him so he will be serving two life sentences once I have passed sentence.

12.      I have already ruled that the retrospective effect of the Criminal Justice (Life Sentences)(Jersey) Law 2014 is lawful and applies in this case to the fixing of the minimum term.  

13.      Therefore under article 4 of that Law the first decision the Court has had to make is to fix the appropriate starting point.

14.      There are 3 possible starting points.  Article 5 which is a whole life sentence.  No one suggests that that is appropriate or that the criteria are met.

15.      Article 6, 30 years for particularly serious cases.  

16.      Article 7 which applies to other cases,   15 years.

17.      The Court is satisfied that this murder is particularly serious and the appropriate starting point is 30 years.

18.      There are a number of reasons for that.  Firstly, the murder was committed in a private flat in the middle of the night when the two victims were asleep.  The Defendant was armed with a knife when he went in.  He went in for some purpose even if the purpose had been formed only shortly before he went in.  He either went in to steal in which case it was a murder for gain or he went in armed with a knife to cause serious harm if not to kill one of the people in the flat.  While in the examples in Article 6 only murder for gain is mentioned the Court takes the view that entering with the intention of either killing or causing grievous bodily harm to one of the victims is every bit as serious.  He not only killed Barbara Griffin but he attempted to murder Emma Anton. 

19.      Those factors, either individually or cumulatively has satisfied the Court that the appropriate starting point is 30 years.  

20.      Starting points are just that, a start.  Depending on aggravating factors and mitigating factors, the final minimum period can be any length.

21.      We have heard of a number of suggested mitigating factors.  I will indicate those that have been taken into account  in reaching the final figure, but I will not indicate in numerical terms the amount that each individual mitigaging factor has affected the final figure.

22.      First, the defence rely on the fact that this offence was committed in 1990, and had the Defendant been sentenced at that time he would have received a sentence of 15 to 16 years.  There has been a reduction from the starting point to reflect that. It is not necessarily accepted that, even if sentenced then, the figure would not have been increased to reflect, in particular, the additional offence of attempted murder.  The reasons for making the  reduction in part are that the 2014 minimum periods are designed to reflect retribution and deterrence.  That is deterrence of other potential criminals, but also the Defendant.  He committed these crimes not knowing what the starting point would be if he were to be caught.  The new minimjm periods could not have acted as a deterrent to him. The Court has also considered and taken into account considerations of fairness.

23.      The other factors which the Court has taken into account are firstly totality.  We have considered the effect of the sentencing guidelines on totality published by the Sentencing Council of England and Wales.  They are not binding on this Court, but the general guidelines  set out a useful way of considering the issue.  The Court has arrived at what it considers to be the appropriate minimum term and then the Court has taken a step back and considered whether taking into account the sentence for the subsequent murder the figure arrived at is proportionate and just.

24.      The Court does not accept the argument put forward by the defence that we should consider what would have been the minimum period that would have been passed if both offences of murder had been dealt with together.  Advocate Morley-Kirk in what was a perfectly logical submission, suggested that the total would have been 25 years so we should impose for this offence a minimum period of 5 years.  That would not be just so far as the families of the victims or the general public are concerned and it is important that the courts retain the confidence of the public.

25.      The Court has considered the submission of Miss Morley Kirk that there was no intention to kill proved.  The Court is satisfied there was an intention to kill.  It may have been formed at about the same time as the blow was struck but that is irrelevant.  According to the pathologist's evidence it was a moderate to severe blow delivered with a knife to the heart.  Added to that is that the jury were satisfied the Defendant intended to kill Emma Anton.

26.      The Court  has taken into account the Defendant's health and the effect that that has had on him in coping with a prison sentence. 

27.      As to life expectancy it may well be that, depending on the progress of the disease he suffers from, his life expectancy will be reduced by being in prison but we have no clear evidence on that.  It may not be possible to have clear evidence as the progress of the Defendant's particular illness is not entirely predictable.  We accept the point made by the prosecution that the power under Article 21 of the 2014 Law to release on compassionate grounds is the correct way to deal with life expectancy.

28.      In relation to a reduction of the minimum term to reflect the time in custody,the Court accepts that it is appropriate to deduct the time on remand for the first trial but not for the second trial as he was  serving the sentence imposed for the Truro murder.  That is in accordance with the normal rule.

29.      Some very limited account has been taken by the Court of the Defendant's age at the time he committed the offence.  He was 21 and was of an age to know what he was doing and why he should not do it. 

30.      We have taken no account of the remainder of the Defence submissions.  There is no basis for suggesting that the minimum term imposed for the Truro offence took into account the murder in Jersey.  It would have been quite wrong to do so and there is no evidence that it did.

31.      Further having read the decision of the Parole Board in 2018 refusing parole, while the Board knew of these allegations there is no evidence that that made any material difference to whether parole was granted or not.  The problem for Tregaskis is that because of his physical disability he is in a Category C prison and Category C prisons do not run the appropriate courses for dangerous offenders.  Categorisation is done in England and Wales on the basis of the risk of escape.

32.      While delay in dealing with the Defendant was put forward, the Court could see no evidential basis for the suggestions made particularly that put forward at para 73 of the skeleton argument which was not pursued in oral argument. 

33.      In deciding on the appropriate minimum term the Court has taken into account the offence of attempted murder as well. 

34.      Having balanced all those factors the sentence on Count 1, which is mandatory is one of life imprisonment.  The minimum period that the Defendant must serve before he is eligible to apply for parole is one of 20 years.  From that must be deducted the time spent on remand before the first trial which was 431 days.

35.      To an extent, the sentence on Count 2 is academic, but the Court does consider it to be appropriate to pass a concurrent determinate sentence.  It was in the Court's judgment a very serious case of attempted murder, committed as it was on an elderly vulnerable lady in her bed asleep in a private flat.  She was a complete stranger to the Defendant and she had done nothing to deserve what happened to her. 

36.      There will be a concurrent sentence of 15 years' imprisonment on Count 2. 

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Life Sentences)(Jersey) Law 2014. 

Practice Statement (Sup Ct Crime Life Sentences), 31 May 2002

AG v Caboz [2003] JRC 230

R v Sullivan [2004] EWCA Crim 1762. 

R v Walker [2005] EWCA Crim 82. 

R v O'Brien [2005] EWCA Crim 173

R v Hummerstone [2014] EWCA Crim 670

Rule 62, Criminal Procedure (Jersey) Rules 2021

Article 7, European Convention on Human Rights