Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 161 (Admin)
Case No: 2004/494/MTR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMIN

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 01/02/2008

Before :

MR JUSTICE SILBER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	IN THE MATTER OF GARETH WEALLEANS		
			
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Mr Justice Silber : 
1. On 27 January 1999, Gareth Wealleans (“the defendant”) was convicted at the Newcastle Crown Court of murdering   Ian Walton (“the deceased”) on 9 March 1998. A sentence of life imprisonment was imposed. The trial Judge (Sullivan J) then fixed the length of detention necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and general deterrence at 14 years. Lord Bingham CJ recommended on 4 February 1999 a slightly shorter punitive term of 12 years. On 17 January 2001, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“the Secretary of State “) notified the defendant that he had fixed the tariff at14 years. 
2. The defendant has applied for the minimum term to be set pursuant to schedule 22 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act“). I have received thoughtful a written submissions on behalf of the defendant as well as the views of the brother of the victim. The defendant has not requested an oral hearing and I do not consider one to be appropriate. 
3. The defendant, who was born on 29 April 1977, stabbed his 63 year old landlord, who was a good friend of his, in a ferocious attack carried out with a large kitchen knife and in consequence the deceased died. Eleven wounds were inflicted by the defendant on the deceased while he was sitting in his armchair watching television or was asleep. The fatal wound went through the deceased’s chest penetrating his lung and ending at his back bone.
4. The trial Judge explained that despite the age gap between the defendant and the deceased, there was no suggestion of any homosexual relationship between the defendant and the deceased. He explained first that they were good friends with the defendant having lived in the deceased’s house for about five years and second that three years before the murder, the deceased had altered his will making the defendant his sole beneficiary.
5. In his report to the Secretary of State, Sullivan J reported that the defendant had gone to elaborate lengths to give the impression that there had been a break-in as the defendant had broken a window and had inflicted wounds upon himself so that he could blame “an intruder” for the murder. The jury rejected this evidence. No motive for the murder was suggested by the prosecution.
6. The sentencing judge considered the mitigating factors were the age of the defendant, the lack of premeditation on the defendant’s part and his good character both in the narrow sense of lack of convictions and in the broader sense that he was a cheerful and pleasant young man leading a normal life. The aggravating features were the ferocity of the attack on a defenceless 63 year old man, who had befriended the defendant, and the complete lack of any remorse on his part.
7. I am required when considering the seriousness of the offence to have regard to the matter set out in schedule 21 of the 2003 Act. Therefore I have to consider what period would have been notified under the practice followed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and then proceed to consider what period would have been arrived at by applying the approach set out in the 2003 Act before then imposing the lower of these 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 1997 by which a period of 14 years was to be served for the normal and unexceptional murder and this murder falls into that category.
9. In this case, the mitigating factors are (a) the age of the defendant who was 20 years of age at the time of the murder, (b) the good character of the defendant both in the sense that he had no previous convictions and that he was a pleasant young man leading a normal life and (c) the lack of pre-meditation on the defendant’s part. 
10. Against that the aggravating features were (a) the nature and age of the victim; (b) the ferocity of the attack; and (c) the lack of remorse on the defendant‘s part. . In my view, the mitigating  factors are balanced by the aggravating factors and that the appropriate period of detention necessary to meet the requirement of retribution and general deterrence  under the practice in force when this murder was committed was a period of 14 years, which was also the period actually fixed by the Secretary of State . 
11. Turning now to the position under the 2003 Act the starting point would be 15 years and by the same mitigating and aggravating factors as are set out in paragraphs 9 and 10 above would apply. The period to be notified under the 2003 Act is likely to be greater than the period fixed by the Secretary of State at the time of the offence because the starting point would be 15 years with the aggravating and mitigating factors again balancing themselves out. 
12. In those circumstances the period to be served in order to meet the requirements retribution and deterrence as being 14 years as from 27 January 1999 less the period of 10 months and 13 days spent in custody. This means that the defendant  must serve a period   of 11 years and 47 days as from 27 January 1999  as this is the period necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and general deterrence before the defendant can be  considered for parole.