Multiple-Victim Murder, Multiple Murders and Sched. 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2011.75.2.693 |
| Published date | 01 April 2011 |
| Author | Barry Mitchell |
| Date | 01 April 2011 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Murders and Sched. 21 to the
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Barry Mitchell*
Abstract
A small proportion of convicted murderers kill more than one
victim: some kill two or more victims by a single act; others kill one at a
time. Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 identifies various
starting points which judges should have regard to when setting the
minimum terms for murderers, but one clear consequence of this is that
the murder of a single victim may result in a starting point of a whole life
term, whereas the murder of multiple victims may indicate a starting point
of a 30-year term. Obviously, all aggravating and mitigating factors must
be taken into account, but this article questions whether the number of
murder victims should automatically be given more weight in determin-
ing the minimum term.
Keywords
Murder; Multiple victims; Minimum terms
The great majority of the discussion that has accompanied the review of
the homicide/murder law since publication of the Law Commission’s
report1 towards the end of 2006 has been directed at situations where
just one person has been killed. But quite obviously, and as reports of
terrorist activities have continued to remind us, sometimes a killer kills
more than one individual, either through a series of acts (multiple
murders), or as the result of a single act (multiple-victim murder).
Assuming the killer intended to kill or seriously injure, and there was no
recognised mitigation which would reduce the offences to man-
slaughter, the killer will be convicted of multiple counts of murder and
the judge will be bound to impose sentences of life imprisonment.2
When identifying the minimum term to be served before the killer is
eligible for formal consideration for release on licence, the judge ‘must
have regard to’ the provisions of Sched. 21 to the Criminal Justice Act
2003.3
Starting points: Criminal Justice Act 2003, Sched. 21,
paras 4(2) and 5(2)
Schedule 21 lists a number of offence—and offender-based—char-
acteristics which indicate various starting points for determining the
minimum term. Paragraph 4(2) suggests a starting point of a whole life
* Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Coventry University Law School;
e-mail: aa9112@coventry.ac.uk.
1 Law Commission, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide, Law Com. Report No. 304
(2006), available at http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/lc_reports.htm, accessed 24 January
2011.
2 Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, s. 1(1).
3 Criminal Justice Act 2003, s. 269(5).
122
The Journal of Criminal Law (2011) 75 JCL 122–131
doi:10.1350/jcla.2011.75.2.693
Multiple-victim Murder, Multiple Murders and the Criminal Justice Act 2003
where the defendant is at least 21 years old when he committed the fatal
act and the murder had one of the following sets of aggravating
features:
(a) two or more people were murdered and (i) there was a sub-
stantial degree of premeditation or planning; (ii) the victim was
abducted; or (iii) there was sexual or sadistic conduct;
(b) the victim was a child and either the child had been abducted or
there was sexual or sadistic conduct;
(c) the murder was committed to advance a political, religious or
ideological cause; or
(d) the murderer had a previous conviction for murder.
On the other hand, a 30-year starting point is indicated, according to
para. 5(2), if the defendant is at least 18 years old and one of the
following aggravating factors was present:
(a) the victim was a police or prison officer acting in the course of his
or her duty:
(b) the defendant used a firearm or explosive;
(c) the murder was carried out for some sort of gain (such as in the
furtherance of a robbery or burglary, or for payment, or in the
expectation of gain);
(d) the defendant intended to obstruct or interfere with the course of
justice by committing the murder;
(e) the murder involved sexual or sadistic conduct;
(f) there were at least two people murdered;
(g) the murder was racially or religiously aggravated or aggravated
by sexual orientation; or
(h) the murder otherwise fell within para. 4(2), but the defendant
was less than 21 years old at the time of the offence.
Thus, there are two occasions on which reference is made to two or
more persons being murdered. In murders committed by those aged 21
years or more involving at least two victims a whole life starting point is
indicated provided there is also one of three further possible aggravating
features—a substantial degree of premeditation, etc. Where there is no
such accompanying aggravation, there should be a lower starting point
(of 30 years) for defendants aged at least 18 years. Presumably, for two
or more murders committed by 18-year-olds where there is one of the
three aggravating factors, the starting point should be somewhere in
between 30 years and a whole life.
The characteristics listed in paras 4(2) and 5(2) of Sched. 21 are
illustrative, rather than exhaustive4 and it is for the sentencing judges to
4 See the text relating to n. 3 above. Section 269(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
also states that when determining the minimum term the court ‘must have regard
to’ any relevant guidelines which are ‘not incompatible with the provisions of
Schedule 21’. Both para. 4(2) and 5(2) expressly state that the presence of the
factors they list would ‘normally’ warrant a starting point of a whole life or 30
years, which clearly permits the sentencing court to take account of other factors.
See also R v Sullivan [2005] EWCA Crim 1762, [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 67 where
Lord Woolf specifically stated that provided the judge bears in mind the principles
in Sched. 21, he is ‘not bound to follow them’ (at [12]).
123
The Journal of Criminal Law
decide whether the case is sufficiently serious to warrant a particular
starting point. Nevertheless, the significance of identifying starting
points is all too apparent. The judge must subsequently increase the
minimum term to take account of any other aggravating factors and/or
reduce it in recognition of any mitigation, but the starting point will
almost inevitably have a major influence on the length of the minimum
term when the judge has finished the calculations.5 Quite clearly, all the
characteristics in paras 4 and 5 reflect what are broadly regarded as
aggravating factors and it is generally left to the judge in each instance to
decide exactly how much weight to attach to any one factor. No limita-
tions are placed on the potential weight or influence to attach to a factor
because it is felt that the precise nature and seriousness—the exact
degree to which it aggravates the gravity of the offence—will vary from
one case to the next. Each of two murders may, for example, be
committed for gain, such as in the course of a robbery, but the serious-
ness of the robbery—and thus the extent to which that criminal context
increases the overall seriousness of the murder—may be greater in one
case than the other. As a general proposition that seems sound, but it
assumes that all these characteristics are broadly comparable, that none
of...
To continue reading
Request your trial