R v Abbott (Terrence John)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs. Justice Cox DBE |
| Judgment Date | 29 February 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 277 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2004/195/MTS |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 29 February 2008 |
[2008] EWHC 277 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mrs Justice Cox Dbe
Case No: 2004/195/MTS
DECISION
The early release provisions are to apply to this Applicant as soon as he has served a term of 16 years' imprisonment minus 9 months and three days, namely the period spent in custody on remand before conviction and sentence.
REASONS FOR DECISION
On the 6 th March 2002 at the Norwich Crown Court, before Mr. Justice Curtis and a jury, Terence Abbott (the Applicant), whose date of birth is 5 th September 1948, was unanimously convicted of the murder of his former wife, Lorraine Baldwin, and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
On the same day Curtis J. recommended to the Home Secretary that the actual length of detention necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and general deterrence for the offence was 16 years. On 23 rd March 2002 the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf CJ, agreed with the trial judge's recommendation. No minimum term has been set by the Home Secretary, who has referred the Applicant's case to the High Court for the making of an order under section 269 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The Applicant has submitted written representations to which are appended various documents. Many of them relate to the various courses he has completed whilst in prison and to evaluation and assessment of his progress. There is no statement from the victim's family.
The Applicant has not requested an oral hearing.
I have considered carefully all the written representations, assessments and reports referred to above. I have had regard in addition to the sentencing remarks and the report of the trial judge. Further assistance as to the background is to be found in the decision of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division dated 10 th February 2003 [2003] EWCA Crim 543, when refusing the Applicant's application for leave to appeal against conviction.
Pursuant to s.269 and Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, in considering the seriousness of this offence I have had regard to the general principles set out in Schedule 21 and the recommendation made to the Home Secretary by the trial judge as to the minimum term. I have also had regard to the effect of credit for the time that the Applicant spent in custody on remand. Further, pursuant to Schedule 22(8)(a) of the 2003 Act, the term set must not be greater than that which, under the practice which existed before December 2002, the Home Secretary would have been likely to set. This offence was committed before 31 st May 2002 and I have therefore had regard, in this respect, to the letter of Lord Bingham CJ dated 10 th February 1997, set out at paras IV.49.18 – 21 of the Practice Direction dated 29 th July 2004.
The relevant facts are these. The Applicant married Ms. Baldwin in 1980. They had four children who, in 2001, were aged between 19 and The marriage was stormy and, in 1999, they divorced. The Applicant had custody of the children and some contact was maintained.
The evidence relied on by the prosecution included a recording of a telephone conversation between the Applicant and Ms. Baldwin said to have taken place in August 2000. The man referred to as “Terry” was heard clearly to be threatening to set fire to her. There was also evidence from a daughter and her partner that they heard the Applicant make a similar threat. Another witness heard him say that if he could not have Lorraine Baldwin, then no one else would.
There was, for a short time, a reconciliation between them but, on 16 th April 2001, this broke down and Ms. Baldwin left the Applicant again. On 19 th April the Applicant drove to the home of his former mother-in-law, where Ms. Baldwin was staying. In the boot of his car he had a red 5 litre can of petrol which he had filled that afternoon.
There was an argument between them and it was common ground at the trial that Ms. Baldwin showed that she wanted no further contact with the Applicant. She and her mother left the house and went to their car. As they did so the Applicant fetched the full petrol can out of his car and threatened Ms. Baldwin with it, saying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BOS GmbH & Company KG v Cobra UK Automotive Products Division Ltd ((in Administration)) (Costs)
...Civ 1703, referred to the judgment of Pumfrey J in Monsanto v Cargill [2007] EWHC 3133 and the judgment of Floyd J in Qualcomm v Nokia [2008] EWHC 277. The upshot of those judgments is having identified who won (no dispute about that here) the issue by issue approach involves two further st......