Setting of Minimum Terms in Relation to Paul Andrew Weddle Pursuant to Paragraph 3, Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Irwin |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 2800 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2006/65/MTR |
| Date | 18 November 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 2800 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before: The Hon Mr Justice Irwin
Case No: 2006/65/MTR
Crown copyright©
Mr Justice Irwin :
This case is referred to the court under Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in order for the court to make an order under Section 269 of the Act in relation to a mandatory life sentence passed upon Paul Andrew Weddle, for the murder on 25 March 1993 of a serving police sergeant Mr William Forth. Mr Weddle was born on 6 December 1967 and was thus 25 years of age at the time of the killing.
I have considered the papers in this case including written representations made on behalf of the prisoner on 15 July 1994 and written representations made on his behalf received on 5 May 2006, the latter including a considerable quantity of documentation. I have also considered the trial judge's reports, the psychiatric report dated 7 July 1993 and a considerable volume of material reporting on the prisoner from within the prison system.
An application for an oral hearing on the resetting of minimum term has been made on behalf of Mr Weddle by his representative Mr Purdon. The grounds advanced are that there was a divergence of judicial opinion and it would be unfair for the minimum term to be reset without oral representations; that Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms mean that an oral hearing is required as a matter of principle and that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of ( Hammond) –v- Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentR- v [2004] EWHC 2753 Admin.
I do not consider there is a need for an oral hearing in this case. The divergence of judicial opinion was resolved entirely in this Defendant's favour and does not give rise to the need for oral representations. It is settled law that Articles 6 and 14 of the ECHR do not require an oral hearing as a matter of principle, and this is not an exceptional case within the reasoning of the court in Hammond.
Mr Weddle is an “existing prisoner” within the meaning of Schedule 2. He was convicted of murder by the jury following a trial before the Honourable Mr John Owen in the Teesside Crown Court, between 8 February and 17 February 1994. He stood trial with a much younger co-defendant whose conviction for murder was subsequently quashed on appeal. On 17 February he was sentenced to life imprisonment. In his report to the Home Secretary, the trial judge recommended a minimum term of 35 years.
The Defendant did have a number of previous convictions before the index offence. They consisted in large measure of relatively minor offences of dishonesty or vehicle crime. He was convicted in October 1988 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm but received a community penalty. I do not consider any of this background of material relevance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of Weddle) v Secretary of State for Justice
...term he must serve before he can be considered for parole was set by Irwin J at 25 years, less the 333 days he had spent on remand: [2009] EWHC 2800 (QB). That period is due to expire on 24 March 2018 at which point he becomes eligible for parole. He has spent a substantial period of his se......