[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Tran, Re [2008] EWHC 159 (Admin) (01 February 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/159.html Cite as: [2008] EWHC 159 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMIN

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		01/02/2008

Mr Justice Silber :

1. On 4 May 1999, Chien Tran (" the defendant") was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of murdering Wai Loon Yong ("the deceased") on 24 February 1998 and a sentence of life imprisonment was imposed. He was also sentenced to a term of 7 years imprisonment for wounding another person with intent on the same day.
2. The trial judge (His Honour Judge Boal QC) considered that the length of detention necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and general deterrence was 15 years. On 24 May 1999, Lord Bingham CJ recommended a term of 14 years. On 20 December 2001, the Secretary of State for the Home Department notified a term of 14 years.
3. The defendant has applied for a review of the minimum term pursuant to Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (" the 2003 Act").
4. I have received written submissions on behalf of the defendant but the deceased's family have declined contact with the Victim Liaison Officer. The defendant has not requested an oral hearing and I do not consider one to be appropriate.
5. The defendant, who was born on 2 September 1976, was part of a group of Asian males who had been together in a nightclub in Leicester Square. After they came out at about 3am, the "North Vietnamese group" attacked a person who hailed from Hong Kong and that was the basis of the count of wounding with intent. After another ugly incident in Leicester Square, the deceased, who was a Malaysian, was fatally attacked in Lisle Street by the same group of North Vietnamese. He had been clubbed down and stuck with one knife or more sustaining at least three potentially fatal stab wounds. The defendant and his two associates pleaded not guilty to the murder count but they were convicted.
6. The trial Judge could not ascertain any motive for the murder.
7. I am required when considering the seriousness of the offence and the period to be fixed to have regard to the matters set out in Schedule 21 of the 2003 Act. I am not permitted by statute to set a minimum term greater than the term the Secretary of State probably would have notified under the practice followed by him before December 2002. Therefore I have to consider what period would have been notified under that practice and then proceed to consider what period would have been arrived at by applying the approach set out in the 2003 Act and then impose the lower of the two periods.
8. The practice which would have been followed by the Secretary of State would have been the practice in the letter sent to judges by Lord Bingham CJ on 10 February 2007 by which a period of 14 years would have been the period actually to be served for the average, normal and unexceptional murder. This case falls within that bracket.
9. In the submissions made on behalf of the defendant by his present solicitors it is pointed out that his previous convictions were "negligible" and that "he certainly did not seem to have a propensity to violence". Reliance is also placed on a letter from the Governor at HMP Wormwood Scrubs dated 23 April 2004 in which the defendant was commended for intervening when a prisoner was trying to commit suicide. It was also said that there was no pre-meditation of his behalf.
10. In my view, the mitigating factors would appear to be (a) lack of pre-meditation and (b) the youth of the defendant who was 22 years of age at the time of the offence.
11. The aggravating features were the viciousness of the attack in which the victim was clubbed down and stabbed with one knife or more receiving at least three potentially fatal stab wounds and the fact that his was a joint attack on a defenceless man.
12. In my view the aggravating and mitigating factors balance themselves and under the system which would have been in force at the time when the offence was committed the Secretary of State is likely to have recommended a period of 14 years to meet the requirements of retribution and general deterrence
13. . I must now must consider if a lower figure would be reached under the 2003 Act. The starting point would be 15 years. The same aggravating and mitigating factors as are set out in paragraphs 10 and 11 above would apply. They would in my view balance themselves out with the result that under the 2003 Act, the likely period to be arrived at would be 15 years which is longer than the period of 14 years which I reached by adopting the practice which would have been applied by the Secretary of State at the time of the offence.
14. . Thus I fix the minimum term at 14 years as from the 4 May 1999 but this should be less 12 months and 11 days spent in custody on remand. That means that as from 4 May 1999 the defendant has to serve 12 years 354 days before he can be considered for parole.