GB - Reynolds, R. v

Judgment

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, CJ:

The duty of the judge under the Criminal Justice Act 2003

In these two appeals, both applicants were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. Each applicant had murdered a person under the age of 18; in the case of Reynolds it was accepted that the murder of the 17 year old girl had been carried out with a sexual and sadistic motivation; in the case of Rosser, it was accepted that the murder of the 4 year old boy had a sadistic motivation but it was denied it had a sexual motivation.

In each case, the judge had to consider whether a whole life order should be imposed under s.269 and Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 . Paragraph 4 (1) of the Schedule provides that the appropriate starting point where the seriousness of the offence is exceptionally high and the offender is over 21 is a whole life order. Cases normally falling within that category are described in paragraph 4(2) as including:

(b) “The murder of a child involving abduction or sexual or sadistic motivation.”

A child is defined as a person under 18.

Paragraph 10 of Schedule 21 sets out some of the aggravating circumstances the court is to consider; paragraph 11 sets out some of the mitigating factors. When determining whether a whole life order should be made the court does not take account of the need to protect the public against the future risk of offending.

In Attorney General’s Reference No 69 of 2013 (McLoughlin) [2014] EWCA Crim 188 , this court set out the background to the 2003 Act in a challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998 to the scheme set out in the Act and associated legislation. It held that the scheme was consistent with the Convention and considered the cases before it. At paragraph 49 the court observed:

“A court must only impose a whole life order if the seriousness is exceptionally high and the requirements of just punishment and retribution make such an order the just penalty.”

At paragraph 59, the court concluded:

“These two cases are exceptional and rare cases of second murders committed by persons serving the custodial part of a life sentence….”

Before turning to the circumstances of each case, it is necessary to refer briefly to the decisions of this court in R v Jones (Neil) [2005] EWCA Crim 3115 , [2006] 2 Cr App R(S) 19 where this court (Lord Phillips CJ, Cresswell and Mackay JJ) heard four appeals together so that it could give assistance as to the application of Schedule 21 and to R v Oakes and