[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Kenton, R. v [2007] EWHC 993 (QB) (17 May 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/993.html Cite as: [2007] EWHC 993 (QB)

[New search] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand. London. WC2A 2LL
		17/05/2007

Mrs Justice Rafferty, DBE :

1. Leon Kenton born on 26/09/1978 was tried in the Crown Court sitting at Manchester between 23rd-27th June 1997 and unanimously convicted of the murder on 27^th October 1996 of Orville Bell. The Recorder of Manchester sentenced him to life imprisonment and recommended he serve a minimum term of 14 years, a figure also recommended by the Lord Chief Justice and adopted by the SSHD. He seeks an oral hearing of the review of that term which I reject. I have considered what information is available to me and am not persuaded that his interests or the interests of justice demand one. There is no right as a matter of principle under Articles 6 and 14 of the ECHR to one such and this is not an exceptional case.
2. Orville Bell was 17 when one gunshot to his neck whilst he sat in his parked motor car proved fatal. A gold chain was stolen from his neck by two assailants on mountain bicycles. They approached the car, went to the driver's door as the shot was fired, pursued the car as Bell reversed in an attempt to escape and in so doing trapped one bicycle beneath a wheel, and once the theft was complete made good their escape into a nearby housing estate. Some 20 minutes later Kenton appeared at the Hat of a local girl his hands and clothing bloodstained, and in possession of Bell's necklace, also bloodstained.
3. There was no direct evidence but circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. Kenton denied the offence, said initially he was nowhere near the scene, then made no comment at interview but told the jury that he was at the home of his sister at the relevant time. As urged by his counsel the Recorder when making his recommendation considered what role Kenton had played and concluded that he was both gunman and the individual who stole the necklace.
4. The motive was unexplained. The Recorder thought it unlikely to have been a street robbery since other valuables on Bell were untouched. Some background information appeared to indicate the involvement of drugs, he being a young man with plenty of money albeit no visible means of support. His previous convictions included robbery, possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of cannabis. At its lowest the Recorder felt this an example of an offence prevalent in Manchester, but this went further. It was an assassination. There was no real exchange between assailants and Bell and no attempt to obtain other available valuables. It bore the hallmarks of killing in cold blood. Having said that there was no evidence of a chain of command within the Mancunian underworld leading to Kenton and it would be unsafe to say he was a foot soldier acting on instruction. The Recorder cautiously treated this as a killing in the course of a theft. At sentence Kenton fell to be regarded as a cold-blooded killer so that the risk of re-offending was high.
5. The single mitigating factor was that he was only 18 which reduced the recommendation to one of 14 years. In representations to this Court Kenton's solicitors agree that 14 years is the appropriate starting point and concede both that had this been a sentencing exercise post CJA 2003 it would have been 30 years and that an aggravating feature is the use of a firearm. They contend that mitigating factors were an intention to cause grievous bodily harm rather than to kill and his youth and that under the Bingham regime another would have been spontaneity. They thus argue for a minimum term of thirteen years. They then cite his progress in prison as justifying a further reduction to an eventual 11 years 146 days. I accept that the starting point today would be 30 years and that, the aggravating features, are as set out. However I do not consider that the starting point is reduced to thirteen years since I reject the contention that there was no intention to kill for the reasons given by the Recorder. Neither do I accept progress in prison as so significant as to reduce the period. I have had regard to all those matters which statute obliges me to consider. I take the same view as did the Recorder of aggravating and mitigating features. I see no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Recorder and of the Lord Chief Justice and the decision of the SSHD. Once the seven months and thirteen days spent in custody on remand is deducted from fourteen years the net term is thirteen years three months and seventeen days.