R v John Reginald Height and Malcolm William Anderson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE KING,LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK,The Lord Chief Justice |
| Judgment Date | 29 October 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWCA Crim 859,[2008] EWCA Crim 2500 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2008/00509 A7 (1),No: 200800509 A7 |
| Date | 29 October 2008 |
[2008] EWCA Crim 2500
The Lord Chief Justice
Lord Justice Thomas
Lord Justice Leveson
Mr Justice Owen and
Mr Justice Christopher Clarke
Case No: 2008/00509 A7 (1)
2008/01403 A7(2)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT NOTTINGHAM
HIS HONOUR JUDGE STOKES QC
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Timothy Barnes QC for Height
Mr C Milligan for Anderson
Mr Greg Dickinson QC and Mr J Straw for the Prosecution
Hearing date : 7 th October 2008
Malcolm Anderson is 55 years old, and John Height is 38 years old. On 30 th April 2007, in the Crown Court at Nottingham, Anderson pleaded guilty to murder, and on 20th December 2007, before His Honour Judge Stokes QC and a jury, Height was convicted of the same murder. The victim was Anderson's 52 year old wife.
On 21 st December they were both sentenced to life imprisonment, in Height's case, with a minimum specified term of 24 years (less days served on remand) and in Anderson's case, with a minimum term of 22 years (again, less days spent on remand).
Height appeals against sentence with leave of the full court. Anderson's application for leave to appeal against sentence and an extension of time was referred to the full court by the Registrar. Anderson's appeal is based on conventional grounds: in essence it is argued that the minimum term was manifestly excessive. Height advances the same contention, but Mr Timothy Barnes QC on his behalf suggests that a more fundamental question is engaged. Putting it briefly, the application of section 269 and schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 produced a result which was obviously unjust. This result stemmed from what Judge Stokes himself described as the “almost arbitrary nature” of the “widely spread” starting points to which he was obliged to have regard under the statutory scheme. If that conclusion was forced on the judge by virtue of the statutory provisions, his application of them was too rigid.
The Facts
Anderson married his wife, Anita, in 1975. They had two children who were, at the time of their mother's death, mature adults. Her widowed father lived in the vicinity and was visited regularly by his daughter.
During 2006 Anderson began an affair with a colleague. The affair was discovered by his wife. The couple separated. He continued to see his lover. However she ended the relationship and returned to her former boyfriend. By the end of August 2006 Mr and Mrs Anderson resumed co-habitation in the matrimonial home. Thereafter, Anderson resumed his affair with his former lover, while simultaneously telling his wife that he was committed to his future with her. She believed him. They arranged to go on a cruise in 2007, during which she thought that they would renew their wedding vows. Arrangements were made for a family Christmas.
In the meantime Anderson told his lover that he saw his future with her. On 2 nd December he told her, untruthfully, that he had spoken to his wife and children, and told them that he wished to be divorced and would move out of the matrimonial home to live with her. Unknown to each other, he invited both women to go with him to the work's Christmas party on Saturday 9 th December. Mrs Anderson was murdered on the night of 8 th December 2006.
Height ran his own business, carrying out maintenance and repair work on trailers for heavy goods vehicles. The bulk of his business derived from Anderson, the transport manager at a haulage business, who for all practical purposes was his boss. According to the account given by Anderson, during November 2006, he spoke to Height at his own place of work, and recalled telling him that he wished there was some way of getting rid of his wife. Height suggested that this could be arranged, and that if Anderson wished to take the proposal any further, he should let him know. Later that month they spoke again, and Anderson asked Height what he needed to do. Height said that he knew people who could take care of it. The price would be £20,000, to be paid “after the dust had settled”. Height said that Anderson should give him the name and address and it would be sorted out. Anderson provided the details, and Height went on to say that it would be made to look like suicide or an accident. Anderson confirmed that his wife had talked about committing suicide in the past.
Anderson stood to gain financially from his wife's death, and Mr Barnes identified the potential sources of profit, including not least, a life insurance policy in the sum of £145,000. The Crown's case, however, was that Anderson's motive, as Mr Greg Dickinson QC explained to Judge Stokes, “simply and wickedly, to be rid of his wife”. From his point of view, any benefit consequent on her death would have been fortuitous.
On the afternoon of 8 th December, again while at work, Anderson and Height spoke again. According to Anderson Height gave him a sterile mobile telephone with instructions for its use. He told Anderson that he should contact him when he was ready to go ahead.
During the evening of 8 th December, at Height's suggestion, Anderson sought to make his wife drowsy by crushing two tablets and putting them in a drink for her to take. As it happened she left most of that drink, and the tablets had no effect. The two of them went to a public house in a nearby village for a meal. They walked home hand in hand afterwards. On their return Anderson telephoned Height using the mobile phone and said “ready when you are”. Height said he would be there within an hour, and he set off to Anderson's house.
At about 10.30pm Anderson returned to the kitchen at his home. His wife was dozing on the settee. He picked up a saucepan. He struck her twice on the head with it in an attempt to render her unconscious. The attack wounded her and caused her to bleed, but did not render her unconscious. She cried out that she needed an ambulance. Her head injuries were serious, but not life threatening. He fetched a towel and wrapped it round her head, and told her he would take her to hospital.
Anderson d id not drive his wife to hospital, but rather to the pre-arranged meeting place at Frampton Bank in Lincolnshire. Height was waiting there in a van. Anderson took his wife from their car, and led her to the rear of the van. Height refused to take her away while she was conscious, and according to Anderson, he declined to attack her himself while she was awake, saying “I need her unconscious, you will have to deliver the knock-out punch because I can't.” According to Anderson, Height offered him a knife and suggested that he cut his wife's throat. Anderson said that he could not do that while she was awake, and Height then handed him a hammer. Anderson struck his wife repeated heavy blows on the head with it. She fell to the ground, and he struck her head again, more than once. All the breath seemed to come out of her body. She stopped making any noise. They thought she was dead. With that she was placed in the back of Height's van. Anderson returned to his home. He telephoned his lover, and spun a story to her about his wife deserting him. He said she had packed a bag and driven away. He invited her to go abroad with him, but she refused, but said that she wanted to go to the Christmas party with him.
In the meantime, Height, who was supposed to be disposing of Mrs Anderson's body, discovered that she was alive. He telephoned Anderson. He told him that he could hear Mrs Anderson in the back of the van, shouting and banging. Height would not kill her himself. Anderson agreed to meet him near to the matrimonial home and he drove in his wife's car to an isolated area across the Fens to the River Welland with Height following in convoy. When they met, Height gave Anderson the knife he had shown him earlier. They opened the back of the van. Anderson removed his wife from it. He pushed her down a steep bank. She fell to the ground. She said, “what's going on, why are you trying to kill me?” He straddled her and stabbed her some eight or nine times with the knife in the chest and stomach. According to Anderson, Height at that stage said something like “go for the throat”, and whether Height in fact said so or not, Anderson cut his wife's throat with the knife. They believed that she was dead. Together they dragged the body to the river. As it entered the river she finally expired. She was covered by Height with a tyre in an attempt at concealment. Her body was found when it was spotted next morning by a passing fisherman, floating in the shallows of the river.
Together they set fire to Mrs Anderson's car. They went back to their place of work and there the van was put through a carwash, and cleaned. Height then drove Anderson home.
Next day Anderson repeated to his family, and eventually the police, his untruthful story about Mrs Anderson driving away and deserting him. He went to the Christmas Party on 9 th December, accompanied by his lover.
At post mortem, it was apparent that Mrs Anderson had suffered head injuries which were themselves life threatening, entirely consistent with repeated blows from a hammer, stab wounds to the front of her body and deep cuts to both sides of the neck. The main blood vessels in both sides of the neck, the carotid arteries, the vertebral arteries and jugular vein were severed. The pattern of injuries as a whole was entirely consistent with this narrative account of her sad death.
On 10 th December Anderson learned that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General's Reference (No 24 of 2008); R v Sanchez
...high then the appropriate starting point in determining a minimum term is 15 years. The statutory framework was recently reviewed in R v Height & Anderson [2008] EWCA Crim 2500, a court presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. At paragraphs 27–30 the court set out the a......
-
R v Kelly and Others
...authorities such as R v. Last [2005] 2 Cr App R (S) 381, R v Peters [2005] 2 Cr App R (S) 627, R v Jones [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 12, R v Height and Anderson [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 656, R v M, AM and Kika [2010] 2 Cr App R (S) 117 and R v Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637. 6 Thus in Height and Ander......
-
R v Oakes R v Restivo R v Roberts R v Simmons R v Stapleton
...nor require that a mechanical or arithmetical approach to the problem of the assessment of the minimum term may be taken. R v Height and Anderson [2009] 1 Cr. App. R(S) 117 provides the necessary emphasis: "We have lost count of the number of times when this court has emphasised that these ......
-
R v Ian Stewart
... [2005] EWCA Crim 605 2005 Cr App R (S) 101; R v Jones and others [2005] EWCA Crim 3115 [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 19; R v Height (John) [2008] EWCA Crim 2500 [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 117; R v Wilson [2009] EWCA Crim 999 [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 11; R v Oakes [2012] EWCA Crim 2435 [2013] QB 97......
-
The Contribution of Complicity
...accessed 1 May2022).19. But, cf., D Husak, ‘Abetting a Crime’(2014) 33 Law and Philosophy 41.20. For example, R v Height, Anderson [2008] EWCA Crim 2500 and the cases cited in the two following footnotes.21. [2008] EWCA Crim 2936.22. Ibid., [20].Dyson 393 as not having the same level of res......
-
The Contribution of Complicity
...accessed 1 May2022).19. But, cf., D Husak, ‘Abetting a Crime’(2014) 33 Law and Philosophy 41.20. For example, R v Height, Anderson [2008] EWCA Crim 2500 and the cases cited in the two following footnotes.21. [2008] EWCA Crim 2936.22. Ibid., [20].Dyson 393 as not having the same level of res......
-
Court of Appeal
...years.The Journal of Criminal Law142 The statutory framework was recently reviewed by the Court ofAppeal in R v Height and Anderson [2008] EWCA Crim 2500. In this case,H and A appealed against their life sentences with specified minimumterms imposed for the murder of A’s wife. The defendan......