More murderers to die in prison

But why don’t ministers mention the downside?

In the King’s speech tomorrow, we can expect the government to promise legislation under which offenders who commit a murder with sexual or sadistic content will — “except in extremely limited circumstances” — receive whole-life orders, meaning that they can expect to die in prison.

The government says this will extend to murders committed in England and Wales before the new law comes into effect — though anyone who has already been sentenced will not be affected. Criminal penalties must not normally be increased retrospectively but the government would presumably argue that the punishment for murder — life imprisonment — remains unchanged.

The Ministry of Justice reminded reporters on Friday that the justice secretary had promised in August to introduce the legislation “in due course”. This session of parliament must be Alex Chalk’s last chance. But he made no mention of the very significant downside that would inevitably follow if his plans are enacted.

For once, I am not talking about pressures on prison capacity. Nor am I discussing whether it would be fair to add what could be half a century to a prison term of 15 years because evidence of sadism can be found. I am not even referring to the increased risk of further killings: a murderer serving a whole-life term may go on to kill any number of prisoners or prison officers without spending longer in prison as a result.

But before discussing the unmentioned downside of this planned reform, we need to consider the case that prompted it.

Zara Aleena

In a statement issued on Friday, Chalk said:

Jordan McSweeney committed a despicable crime for which the only punishment should be life behind bars.  

This is exactly why we’re pushing ahead with important reforms to keep offenders like him locked up for good. A whole life order should be handed down to murderers with sexual conduct, unless there are truly exceptional circumstances.

This will mean for the most depraved killers life means life with no prospect of release.

The statement was issued a few hours after the Court of Appeal reduced McSweeney’s minimum term for murdering Zara Aleena, a “smart and successful 35-year-old” who was training to be a solicitor.

Zara Aleena

The minimum was set last December by Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb. Because the murder involved sexual or sadistic conduct, the normal starting point of 15 years was doubled to 30 years. To reflect a number of aggravating features, Cheema-Grubb added another 13 years.

The defendant had pleaded guilty and so the judge allowed a reduction of five years — the maximum discount available for murder under current sentencing guidelines. That led to a minimum term of 38 years.

The appeal

McSweeney sought to appeal against this minimum term and the case was heard last month by the lady chief justice of England and Wales, Dame Sue Carr, sitting with Mrs Justice McGowan and Mrs Justice Ellenbogen. On Friday, they delivered a detailed written judgment running to 70 paragraphs.

For the benefit of busy reporters, the judges also issued a press summary of 14 paragraphs. Unusually, the most important passages were underlined for emphasis. We can confidently assume that not only was the press summary drafted by the lady chief justice herself but also that Carr had personally emphasised the points she regarded as the most important.

One of these explained that the court’s task

was to assess whether or not the sentence was manifestly excessive, not by reference to historic sentencing practices, or by reference to possible future sentencing regimes, but by reference to [the law] as it stands.

The phrase “historic sentencing practices” must refer to the minimum terms imposed before the starting point for a murder such as this was increased to 30 years in 2003. “Possible future sentencing regimes” must be a reference to Chalk’s plans.

Carr explained that the starting point of 30 years

reflected the mental or physical suffering inherent in a murder involving sexual conduct and was double the starting point which applies to an offence of murder at the bottom end of the range for which [the law] provides. It was already a very severe penalty.

In those circumstances, the judges said, “the uplift of 13 years from the starting point of 30 years was far too high”. They reduced it to eight years. The discount for a guilty plea — capped at five years — was left unchanged. That produced a minimum term of 33 years.

And there was one more point that Carr thought it important to emphasise:

The minimum term is the period which a person serving a life sentence must serve before becoming eligible to be considered for release on licence by the Parole Board. An offender will not necessarily be released at the end of that term, or at any time after that.

Reaction

The victim’s family issued a dignified statement:

Today’s decision, a decision to reduce the minimum sentence for that repugnant man, aligns with an established legal sentencing framework, a framework we comprehend.

Yet the message it conveys to women is disheartening, suggesting that a “life sentence” may not truly mean a lifetime behind bars…

The prospect of his release after 33 years remains slim but, naturally, we hope he remains imprisoned for life.

Downside

Back, now to the downside inherent in the government’s proposed reforms.