R v Shanks (Thomas)

DECISION

The early release provisions are to apply to this Applicant as soon as he has served a term of 18 years' imprisonment minus 23 months and seven days, namely the period spent in custody on remand before conviction and sentence.

REASONS FOR DECISION

On the 19 ^th April 2000 at the Sheffield Crown Court before Mr. Justice Jowitt and a jury, Thomas Shanks (the Applicant), whose date of birth is 16 ^th January 1951, was convicted of the murder of Victoria Fletcher and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

On the same day Jowitt 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 18 years. On 2 ^nd May 2000 the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham 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.

Solicitors have submitted written representations on the Applicant's behalf. There is also a “Personal Testimonial” from the Applicant, a large number of character references submitted on his behalf, and various prison and probation reports written after sentence was passed and referring to his behaviour and progress whilst in custody. There is no statement from the victim's family.

The Applicant's solicitors have applied for an oral hearing in respect of the minimum term to be set. The grounds relied upon are that I need to hear oral representations as to the progress he has made whilst in custody and the changes in his circumstances. Reference is also made to the need for fairness and to Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, in the case of Hammondyle [2004] EWCH (Admin) 2753, the Divisional Court concluded that cases where oral representations may be required will be rare and that the decision as to the minimum term will be made without an oral hearing save in rare and exceptional circumstances, where the judge considers a hearing to be appropriate.

In the present case it is not suggested that oral evidence is required. The oral representations requested go essentially to the Applicant's progress in custody and as to the effect of the relevant Practice Direction and the case of R v Sullivan [2004] EWCA Crim 1762. However, the principles to be applied in setting the term are now clear and, in respect of the Applicant's progress and the various matters referred to in the representations, I have ample material before me to enable me to form a view without hearing oral submissions. In my judgment there are no exceptional circumstances so as to require an oral hearing to be held in this case. I therefore refuse the application and shall determine the issue on the papers.

I have considered carefully all the written representations, references 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 relevant background is available from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dated 19 ^th March 2003 when dismissing the Applicant's appeal against conviction [2003] EWCA Crim 680.

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 victim of the offence was an 18 year old nurse who, in the mid 1990s, worked at the same hospital in Pontefract as the Applicant, an anaesthetist then in his mid forties. They entered into a relationship which lasted for about 3 years and which the trial judge described as “turbulent”. The eventual breakdown of their relationship caused the Applicant considerable distress particularly since he had been rejected in favour of another man. This was not the first occasion that this had happened and the Applicant was hurt and angry.

Shortly afterwards, on the evening of 7 ^th May 1998, the Applicant telephoned Ms. Fletcher at the public house where she was, in Castleford, and told her that he was coming to see her. He then cleaned and assembled a Kalashnikov AK 47 assault rifle which he had brought back with him from the Gulf war, where he had served as an army doctor. He fed 21 rounds of ammunition into its magazine and attached it to the rifle. He then put the rifle, together with an...