[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 >> Grant, R v [2007] EWHC 608 (QB) (02 March 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/608.html Cite as: [2007] EWHC 608 (QB)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		2 3 2007

Mr Justice Burton :

1. Jason Scott Grant was unanimously convicted on 13 February 2003 at the Central Criminal Court before HH Judge Boal QC and a jury, of one count of murder, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment and one of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, for which he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment concurrent. He was then 22, and is now 27. The circumstances of the murder, in his own home, of a 45-year old chartered accountant and family man, with whom the defendant and his fellow assailants had no connection whatever, arose out of a deliberate attempt to cause serious injury to another quite different person, in the intended pursuit of which they had gone to a completely incorrect address.
2. The defendant was a regular customer at Yates Wine Lodge in Hounslow and was on friendly terms with the door staff. On 8 March 2002, two Kosovans, a Mr Ismaili and another, were ejected from the premises by a number of doormen, including the head doorman, a Mr Young, and another doorman, Mr Hilton. On the 9 March, Mr Ismaili and two others returned to the wine lodge, armed with bars or bats, looking to take revenge on the door staff, and they caused a good deal of damage, including an attack with those weapons in the club carpark upon a car owned by Young and being driven by Hilton. A revenge attack was planned by Young, who recruited the defendant. What the learned trial judge, in his report to the Home Secretary, referred to as a 'posse', consisting of the defendant, Young and two other doormen who were acquitted, set off in a car driven by Hilton to a house which had been incorrectly identified as the address where Mr Ismaili would be found. At the house, the defendant kicked down the door, smashing the chain guard, and all five men entered. The occupant of the house, the entirely innocent accountant, was stabbed at least 11 times and died on the floor of his own living room. Two knives, which evidence suggested the defendant had taken from his aunt's house before the attack, were found discarded in a drain on the route from the murder site to the wine lodge. The jury convicted the defendant of murder, acquitting the co-defendants, and convicted the defendant, Young, Hilton and Young's girlfriend, of the conspiracy. The defendant's defence, which was plainly rejected by the jury, was that he had thought the visit was designed "to sort the matter out", without recourse to violence, or at worst resulting in any minimal violence in self defence. At the trial there was a "cut-throat" between the defendant, who claimed to have no knife, and the four doormen, who all said that the defendant was armed with a knife in each hand.
3. The defendant had a lengthy previous record, his last conviction having been in September 2001, although almost entirely for offences of dishonesty, and none for serious violence.
4. In sentencing the defendant, the learned Judge noted that "a perfectly innocent man, described as 'kind and gentle, intelligent and successful' was ruthlessly and mercilessly done to death in his own home. He was stabbed at least 11 times and left to bleed to death on the floor of his living room" and that "what must have appalled all those who heard this tragedy unfold is that this man died as the result of a plan to do really serious harm to another man". He concluded that the defendant had shown no sign of remorse for what happened, and continues:

"Indeed, you seem to have taken pride in what you did. That simply reinforces my conclusion, reached after listening to this evidence for many weeks and observing you and your reactions to it, that you are an extremely dangerous young man from whom the public will need protection for a very long time. No one who heard the evidence will ever forget the description of you sitting in that car, after you had murdered that man, licking the blood from your hand and saying how you loved claret. That terrible image was recalled when another witness described how you admitted this killing with relish and added that whereas you used to get a thrill out of knocking the fuck out of people, you now had the taste for blood."

5. The trial judge recommended a tariff period of 16 years. In his report to the Home Secretary he concluded that the circumstances of the murder and of the concomitant conspiracy were of themselves aggravating features, and that there was no real mitigation. There had been before him when sentencing a pre-sentence report, with which the defendant's Counsel made it clear that his client did not agree, and a psychiatric report, upon which his Counsel relied only for the purposes of indicating that there could be help or psychological treatment in prison.
6. The tariff was not further considered by the Lord Chief Justice. An application for leave to appeal against conviction was, with leave of the single judge, referred to the full court on two grounds, but was dismissed on 27 October 2004. I am now required to consider, pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 6 of Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act") what minimum term should be imposed.
7. In setting the minimum term, I take account of the general principles set out in Schedule 21 of the 2003 Act and the guidance contained in the Lord Chief Justice's letter of 10 February 1997, as set out in paragraph IV.49.18-22 of the Practice Direction issued on 29 July 2004.
8. There is no impact statement from the victim's family, but I have already cited above what the sentencing judge said about him, and the horror when his wife and son discovered his dead body, and their continuing distress and sense of loss do not need to be emphasised.
9. The defendant has not sought an oral hearing, and although he indicated in February 2006 that he would be asking someone to make representations on his behalf, that has not occurred. In his letter of 10 February 2006 he states that he received a letter from the Home Office in respect of steps he had taken to save someone's life while in prison, which he wishes taken into account.
10. This case does not fall within paragraph 4(1) or 5(1) of Schedule 21. I therefore take as the starting point a term of 15 years.
11. I have no reason to believe that the recommendation of the trial judge would have been increased by the Secretary of State (see paragraphs 26-45 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division by Lord Woolf CJ in Sullivan, Gibbs, Elener & Elener [2005] 1 CAR(S) 67(308)). Thus, by reference to paragraph 10(a) of Schedule 22 of the 2003 Act, that is the ceiling to any order that I can now make upon my own review.
12. It is apparent that the trial judge concluded that there were no mitigating factors, and none are apparent to me, apart of course from his age. On the other hand there were substantial aggravating factors in relation to what occurred, to which the learned judge refers. There was plainly pre-planning and premeditation. The offence of murder was committed in circumstances where a further serious offence was actually intended, and in mistaken pursuit of it. The murder was of an entirely innocent party in the most frightening circumstances, within what he must have thought was the sanctity of his own home.
13. I conclude that the appropriate minimum term is that which was recommended by the trial judge, namely 16 years, less the period spent in custody on remand, a period of 11 months and 13 days, giving a minimum term of 15 years and 17 days.
14. The minimum term is the minimum amount of time the defendant will spend in prison from the date of sentence before the Parole Board can order early release. If it remains necessary for the protection of the public, the defendant will continue to be detained after that date. When the defendant has served the minimum term, and if the Parole Board decides to direct his release, he will remain on licence for the rest of his life and may be recalled to prison at any time.