Paul Dillon v R
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Bean |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWCA Crim 3 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 201403771 A1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 20 January 2015 |
[2015] EWCA Crim 3
Lord Justice Bean
Mr Justice Globe
and
Mr Justice Turner
Case No: 201403771 A1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT ST ALBANS
HIS HONOUR JUDGE GULLICK
T20147076
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Matthew Hardyman for the Appellant
Kevin Barry for the Respondent
Hearing date: 14 January 2015
This appeal against sentence in a murder case, brought by leave of the single judge, raises once again the issue of when a weapon is to be treated as having been "taken to the scene" for the purposes of paragraph 5A of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The facts
The appellant lived alone at Flat 51 Guinness House on the Panshanger estate in Welwyn Garden City. Rachel Lowes lived at Flat 50, next door to the appellant, with her 18 month old daughter. Scott Stone, the deceased, was her partner and the father of the child. He would visit regularly.
When Ms Lowes moved into her flat in September 2013 she initially became friends with Leaigh Josling, who lived at flat 53, just across the hallway from the appellant and Ms Lowes.. As time went on the two women fell out. In the weeks and months leading up to the offence there had been on-going arguments and complaints were made.
The appellant was a close friend of Ms Josling and they spent a good deal of time socialising with each other. Ms Lowe had made complaints about the appellant playing loud music at all times of the day and night and that this had interfered with her baby's sleep.
Ms Lowes heard rumours circulating locally that the appellant was a paedophile. There appears to have been no truth whatever in those rumours, but they seem to have coloured her view of the appellant.
On the night of Saturday 15th March 2013 Stone stayed with Ms Lowes. The following morning they had an argument and Stone left at about 10.30am on Sunday 16th March 2013. They continued to exchange angry text messages. Stone spent the afternoon drinking with a friend and then arrived back at his mother's home at 5.45pm. At the time of his death he had a blood-alcohol level equivalent to two and a half times the drink drive limit.
The flats had balconies. Shortly after noon Ms Lowe saw the appellant on his balcony drinking and listening to music. At about 2.00pm another person saw him still doing the same thing.
In the afternoon that Sunday Ms Lowe took her daughter to visit her sister. She returned just after 6.30pm. As she approached the block of flats she saw the appellant in the car park behaving strangely. He entered the block first and she followed a minute later. She took the lift up to her flat and entered the communal area
As Ms Lowe walked to her front door the appellant walked past her and she thought he said "fat whore" or something similar. When he repeated those words she told him to, "fuck off" as she went to enter her flat.
The appellant approached Ms Lowe angrily. She struggled to push her front door open and get her daughter's buggy inside. The appellant shouted at her and tried to force his way into her flat. She pushed against the door, but the appellant put his foot in the door so that she could not close it. He continued to insult her and said "You shouldn't have kids". Eventually he stepped back and she was able to close the door. She shouted that she was going to all the police, which she did at 6.35pm.
The appellant visited Ms Josling and then left the building to buy some beer for her. He returned after five minutes, delivered the beer and returned to his own flat.
Meanwhile, Ms Lowe had sent a text message about what had happened to Jamie Mitchell, a friend of Stone. After phoning Ms Lowe, Jamie Mitchell rang Stone. Jamie Mitchell described Stone as being "fuming". When Stone left his mother's house she said that he was "quite clam, but annoyed".
As Lowe kept watch at the window for the police to arrive she saw Stone arrive. It was 7.13pm when he started to bang on her door. By the time she opened the door Stone was at the appellant's front door. He was banging and kicking the door and shouting words to the effect, "Get the prick out here".
Ms Lowe took hold of Stone and told him the police were coming and he should come away. However, Stone was angry and he returned to the appellant's door and resumed banging on it.
Suddenly the appellant's door opened and without saying a word the appellant plunged a knife into Stone's chest. 80% of the blade entered, to a depth of 23 centimetres. That fatal blow damaged the left lung and penetrated through the heart and came to a halt to the left of his spine. As Stone was bent forward clutching his chest the appellant chopped him over the head with the knife causing a wound and a groove in the skull. That blow was later found to have been a substantial blow and required a great deal of force. The appellant pushed Stone to the end of communal hallway and out of sight around the corner.
The appellant returned and went back into his flat. He was holding the large knife.
Police officers arrived. Stone was found in the stairwell, collapsed against a wall in a pool of blood. Although paramedics reached the scene quickly they were unable to save him. He had lost a great deal of blood. He was declared dead at the scene at 8.14pm.
The appellant took the knife that he had used to stab Scott Stone into his own flat, made some effort to wash off the blood and placed it into the kitchen drawer.
The appellant then left his flat and then crossed the corridor to the flat of Ms Josling. He took a small knife with him. Ms Josling described him as being quite calm. He told her, "Call the police, I reckon I'm going to get arrested for that". He then put the knife down and used Ms Josling's phone to call the police. during that call he said, "Someone's just attacked my door, I was so scared…that I got a knife…". He went on to say, "He's gone now, but to be honest with you I stabbed him with a knife". The prosecution described the appellant as being "strikingly calm" during that call.
At 7.30pm the appellant was found in Ms Josling's flat and he was arrested for attempted murder. In response he shrugged his shoulders. At the police station, when arrested for murder he responded, "You're not serious".
When samples were taken by a Scenes of Crime Officer it was noticed that the appellant had small stab wound to the back of his right leg. The appellant said, "He must have stabbed me". He was taken to hospital and the wound was stitched. It was not clear how the wound was caused. There was no evidence that Stone used a knife during the incident. When interviewed on 17th March 2014 the appellant chose not to answer any questions.
A knife recovered from the appellant's home was the knife that killed Scott Stone. It was about 11 inches long with a blade that had a maximum width of just over one inch. DNA from blood stains matched that of Scott Stone. Attempts had been made to wash the knife.
A post mortem concluded that the cause of death was a single stab wound to Stones chest which would have required moderate or more force. Two other significant wounds were a 7 centimetre wound to the top of the head, with a grove cut into the skull to a depth of almost half a centimetre, suggesting a chopping type action with a heavy bladed weapon
There was also a 4 centimetre curving wound, or cut, on the right cheek, through partial thickness of the skin only. That appeared to have been caused by a knife.
The statute and the authorities on it
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Mandatory Life Sentence: Determination of Minimum Term) (Order) 2010 amended Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the 2003 Act). After paragraph 5 a new paragraph 5A was inserted. This provides:
"(1) If –
(a) the case does not fall within paragraph 4( 1) or 5(1),
(b) the offence falls within sub-paragraph (2), and
(c) the offender was aged 18 or over when the offender who committed the offence,
(d) the offence is normally to be regarded as sufficiently serious for the appropriate starting point, in determining the minimum term, to be 25 years.
(2) The offence falls within this sub-paragraph if the offender took a knife or other weapon to the scene intending to –
(a) commit any offence, or
(b) have it available to use as a weapon,
(c) and used that knife or other weapon when committing the murder."
The leading authority on paragraph 5A is the decision of this court on four appeals, reported as Kelly and others [2012] 1 Cr App. R.(S) 56; [2011] EWCA Crim 1462. Lord Judge CJ said:
"The structure of Schedule 21 [to] the Act (identified in a series of judgments of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division) requires the starting point for the assessment of the minimum terms for adults convicted of murder to be identified by reference to murders of exceptional seriousness (full life); of particularly high seriousness (30 years); and murders where the seriousness is neither exceptional nor particularly high (15 years). Cases which would normally fall within the exceptional and particularly high levels of seriousness are listed and exemplified in paragraphs 4 and 5 respectively. Nevertheless these lists do not create impenetrable compartments and every case will be subject to its own specific and individual features of mitigation and aggravation. Therefore cases which are not expressly described in paragraphs 4 and 5 may be treated as cases of exceptional or particularly high seriousness, and cases which on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paul Wadkin (1) Jason George Gomez (2) v R
...the same thing as a finishing point"; and that it is important to avoid major differences in sentence based on fine distinctions: see R v Paul Dillon [2015] EWCA Crim 3, at para. 32(c), in the judgment of the court given by Bean LJ. In that case the court was addressing the provisions of pa......
-
R v Jovan Martin
...house itself where the violence first had started. The court drew the attention of counsel in this regard to the case of R v Dillon [2015] 1 Cr App R (S) 62 which contains a very helpful view of the relevant authorities in this particular area and indicates that, even where a starting point......
-
R v Tomasz Dybicz
...point would have been 15 years. Reliance is placed in this regard on R v Kelly [2011] EWCA Crim 1462, [2012] 1 WLR 55 and R v Dillon [2015] EWCA Crim 3, [2015] 1 Cr App R (S) 41 That point of principle is well established, and we have no doubt the judge had it well in mind. But of course......
-
R v Maxine Temilola Benson
...of this court to which we have been referred. First, R v Marlon Kelly & Ors [2011] EWCA Crim 1462; [2012] 1 Cr App R(S) 56 and secondly, R v Dillon [2015] EWCA Crim 3; [2015] 1 Cr App R(S) 62. 20 The propositions of law which can be derived from those two authorities are clearly set out in ......