[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 >> Ives, R. v [2007] EWHC 991 (QB) (17 May 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/991.html Cite as: [2007] EWHC 991 (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. Between 5^th and 11^th March 1996 in the Crown Court sitting at Sheffield Stuart Ives was tried for and unanimously convicted of the murder on 25^th February 1995 of Arthur Pickersgill and on 11^th March sentenced by Morland J to life imprisonment.

The Facts

2. Arthur Pickersgill aged 58 was a well-known character in Barnsley's betting shops and public houses. During the morning of 28^th February 1995 he collected his disability allowance. Ives and his sister Susan (acquitted of murder at the close of the case for the Crown upon the direction of the judge) left home with no money. At about 4.45pm they met Pickersgill and went with him to a public house where he bought them some 4 pints each of beer. The bar staff told of his being harassed and of Ives saying he knew Pickersgill had "another fiver". Shortly before 8pm Ives was seen dragging him towards an alley leading to a car park. Pickersgill was three times over the limit for driving. Susan Ives was with them.
3. In the car park Ives punched him to the side of the head knocking him to the ground, kicked him to the head and repeatedly and forcibly stamped on his face and head. All facial bones were smashed. 12 ribs and his sternum were fractured, some more than once. Death was from ingestion of blood from the facial injuries.
4. Susan Ives telephoned for an ambulance. When the police found his body all his pockets had been rifled and no money was on or near him. By this time Ives was in a nearby public house buying drinks.
5. He did not give evidence, relying upon his answers in interview. He disputed stamping and put in issue intention, conceding frogmarching Pickersgill into the car park, punching him to the side of the face, knocking him to the ground and kicking him three times to the head. He claimed that he had been provoked by Pickersgill's having rubbed his hand up and down the back of Susan, whom Pickersgill said was a prostitute.
6. At the time of the killing Ives was prescribed an anti-depressant but told police that he had not that day taken it since it did not mix with alcohol. A consultant psychiatrist found him not to be suffering any mental disorder or illness and wrote

"He showed very little remorse............and appeared to be devoting all his efforts to presenting as good a picture of himself as possible".

7. Morland J found as aggravating features that this was a savage merciless sustained attack on a defenceless man on the ground, the motive robbery. The savagery indicated that Ives might be a danger to the public if prematurely released. Mitigatory features were his youth, his earlier unsettled life, living with foster parents, in charitable institutions and with Travellers. He had numerous previous convictions but had-not served-a-custodial sentence-nor-committed-a serious-violent offence. In addition to dishonesty his convictions were for criminal damage and for possession of an offensive weapon. This latter comment I regard as neutral.
8. Morland J recommended a minimum term of 12 years but had Ives been much older than 21 the figure would have been 14. The Lord Chief Justice did not agree that, in this appalling case, Ives's age should bring down the term below 14 years and recommended 14/15 years. The SSHD nominated 15 years.
9. This murder having been committed before 31^st May 2002 the appropriate starting point is the 10^th February 1997 letter from Lord Bingham now encapsulated in PD 29^th July 2004 at paragraphs IV.49.18 et seq. Lord Bingham's practice was to take fourteen years as the period to be served for the "average" "normal" or "unexceptional" murder and he outlined examples of factors capable in appropriate cases of mitigating that figure. They were:

"Youth; age (where relevant to physical or to the likelihood of the defendant's dying in prison; subnormality or mental abnormality; non-technical provocation or an excessive response to a personal threat; the absence of an intention to kill; spontaneity and lack of premeditation beyond that necessary to constitute the offence: eg a sudden response to family pressure or to prolonged and eventually insupportable stress; mercy killing; a plea of guilty or hard evidence of remorse or contrition. "

10. Factors likely to call for a term more severe than the norm included:

"Evidence of a planned professional revenge or contract killing; the killing of a child or a very old or otherwise vulnerable victim; evidence of sadism gratuitous violence or sexual maltreatment humiliation or degradation before the killing; killing for gain (in the course of burglary robbery blackmail insurance fraud etc); multiple killings; the killing of witness or potential witness to defeat the ends of justice' the killing of those doing their public duty (policemen prison officers postmasters firemen judges etc); terrorist or politically motivated killings; the use of firearms or other dangerous weapons whether carried for defensive or offensive reasons; a substantial record of serious violence; macabre attempts to dismember or conceal the body."

11. Lord Bingham further stated that the fact that a defendant was under the influence of drink or drugs was so commonplace that he would be inclined to treat it as neutral, but in the not unfamiliar case in which a married couple or two homosexuals inflamed by drink indulge in a violent quarrel in which one dies often against a background of longstanding drunken violence then he would tend to recommend a term somewhat below the norm. He considered that given the intent necessary to prove murder and other matters a substantial term will almost certainly be called for save perhaps in a truly venial case of mercy killing. Whilst a punitive term longer than say thirty years will be very rare indeed there should not be any upper limit.
12. I have had regard to the progress made in prison by Ives and although it is encouraging it does not prompt me to alter my conclusions.
13. The starting point under the current regime would be fifteen years.
14. Aggravated and mitigated as set out by Morland J whose conclusions I adopt the minimum term is my view properly twelve years. I see no reason to depart from his assessment on any front.
15. Ives spent three hundred and seventy-seven days in custody on remand so that the net term is ten years three hundred and fifty-three days.