Crown Court for Northern Ireland Decisions

Background

"My brother Stanley was murdered on 15th September 2006 and I want to try and explain the effect that this has had on me and other members of my family. Some may try and judge Stanley because of the type of life he led, he had a drink problem and was transient, moving from hostel to hostel. No one in our family judged him, he had a problem with drink but it didn't change the fact that he was still a brother and a son. Stanley would come in and out of all our lives but when he came in the door was always open. If Stanley needed help he got help, perhaps because he came in and out people seemed to dote on him. Stanley was able to fend for himself but he was a timid, harmless man who whatever his demons was always respectful and polite and for this reason people wanted to help him. It is perhaps for this reason hard to accept that Stanley was killed in such a brutal way. No one deserves to die in the way he did especially not someone as gentle and timid as Stanley. Personally that is one of the things I have found hard to deal with. I wasn't allowed to identify him because of the extent of his injuries. That will always live with me the fact that I never got to see him and imagining what he had to suffer. The nature of Stanley's death has affected my sleep and caused massive stress to other family members. It was like my father changed overnight. My dad worked the ice- cream van for fifty years but hasn't worked since. Stanley's death just seemed to change him totally. I think it is telling what my dad put in the book of remembrance at the funeral home 'I'm sorry son I wasn't there'. My dad lives for his children and the fact that one of his sons suffered such a violent death made him feel guilty that he wasn't there to protect him because he always has been. It is natural for a father to want to protect his children and I think my dad feels a failure because he wasn't there to protect Stanley. My mum is now terminally ill with cancer, this cancer was diagnosed in August 2007. I have no doubt that the cancer came about because of the stress of losing Stanley in such a sudden and brutal way. My mum has always struggled to accept what has happened and to this day has never been to Stanley's grave and now never will due to the graveness of her illness. My sister Janet was probably the one who was closest to Stanley. She always saw him as her younger brother and was probably the sibling Stanley was closest to. When he came to stay he always stayed at her house. Janet cannot accept Stanley's death and it has had a huge affect on her personality and her personal life. Wherever he went Stanley was loved due to the type of person he was. This is what makes the way he died so hard to come to terms with. When someone in your family is murdered there are different hurdles to overcome, someone charged, court cases, not guilty pleas, trials and I only hope with Stanley's murderer being sentenced that it will be a trigger for me and my family to try and move on. It will always be hard to accept that something so violent and brutal happened to my gentle brother."

"The normal starting point of 21 years

10. Cases falling within this starting point will normally involve the killing of an adult victim, arising from a quarrel or loss of temper between two people known to each other. It will not have the characteristics referred to in para 12. Exceptionally, the starting point may be reduced because of the sort of circumstances described in the next paragraph.

11. The normal starting point can be reduced because the murder is one where the offender's culpability is significantly reduced, for example, because: (a) the case came close to the borderline between murder and manslaughter; or (b) the offender suffered from mental disorder, or from a mental disability which lowered the degree of his criminal responsibility for the killing, although not affording a defence of diminished responsibility; or (c) the offender was provoked (in a non-technical sense), such as by prolonged and eventually unsupportable stress; or (d) the case involved an overreaction in self-defence; or (e) the offence was a mercy killing. These factors could justify a reduction to eight/nine years (equivalent to 16/18 years).

The higher starting point of 15/16 years

12. The higher starting point will apply to cases where the offender's culpability was exceptionally high or the victim was in a particularly vulnerable position. Such cases will be characterised by a feature which makes the crime especially serious, such as: (a) the killing was 'professional' or a contract killing; (b) the killing was politically motivated; (c) the killing was done for gain (in the course of a burglary, robbery etc.); (d) the killing was intended to defeat the ends of justice (as in the killing of a witness or potential witness); (e) the victim was providing a public service; (f) the victim was a child or was otherwise vulnerable; (g) the killing was racially aggravated; (h) the victim was deliberately targeted because of his or her religion or sexual orientation; (i) there was evidence of sadism, gratuitous violence or sexual maltreatment, humiliation or degradation of the victim before the killing; (j) extensive and/or multiple injuries were inflicted on the victim before death; (k) the offender committed multiple murders.

Variation of the starting point

13. Whichever starting point is selected in a particular case, it may be appropriate for the trial judge to vary the starting point upwards or downwards, to take account of aggravating or mitigating factors, which relate to either the offence or the offender, in the particular case.

14. Aggravating factors relating to the offence can include: (a) the fact that the killing was planned; (b) the use of a firearm; (c) arming with a weapon in advance; (d) concealment of the body, destruction of the crime scene and/or dismemberment of the body; (e) particularly in domestic violence cases, the fact that the murder was the culmination of cruel and violent behaviour by the offender over a period of time.

15. Aggravating factors relating to the offender will include the offender's previous record and failures to respond to previous sentences, to the extent that this is relevant to culpability rather than to risk.

16. Mitigating factors relating to the offence will include: (a) an intention to cause grievous bodily harm, rather than to kill; (b) spontaneity and lack of pre-meditation.

17. Mitigating factors relating to the offender may include: (a) the offender's age; (b) clear evidence of remorse or contrition; (c) a timely plea of guilty.

Very serious cases

18. A substantial upward adjustment may be appropriate in the most serious cases, for example, those involving a substantial number of murders, or if there are several factors identified as attracting the higher starting point present. In suitable cases, the result might even be a minimum term of 30 years (equivalent to 60 years) which would offer little or no hope of the offender's eventual release. In cases of exceptional gravity, the judge, rather than setting a whole life minimum term, can state that there is no minimum period which could properly be set in that particular case.

19. Among the categories of case referred to in para 12, some offences may be especially grave. These include cases in which the victim was performing his duties as a prison officer at the time of the crime or the offence was a terrorist or sexual or sadistic murder or involved a young child. In such a case, a term of 20 years and upwards could be appropriate."

(i) Arming himself with a weapon – the TV – the purpose of which can only have been to give effect to his intention to kill.

(ii) His highly relevant previous record for grievous bodily harm with intent which involved persistent violence on a pregnant female including threats to kill and that he would kick the child - another offence of extreme terrifying violence.