Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2005] All ER (D) 368 (Nov)
Neutral Citation: [2005] EWHC 2624 (QB)
Court: Queen's Bench Division
Judge:

Jack J

Judgment Dates: 28 November 2005

Catchwords

Sentence - Mandatory life sentence - Murder - Minimum term - Whether offender to have oral hearing - Whether offender's minimum term ought to be reduced - , Sch 22, para 3.

The Case

There was no need for an oral hearing of the review of the offender's minimum term under para3 of Sch22 to the . An application under para3 of Sch22 to the 2003 Act was not an occasion for the applicant to dispute his guilt. Nor was it appropriate for an examination of his motive. Furthermore, a reviewing judge should not hear evidence as to the offender's remorse. There was also no requirement to have an oral hearing to consider medical evidence. On the facts, there should be no reduction of the minimum term.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.