Mairead Philpott Loses Appeal Against Sentence

Last Friday (29 November) Mairead Philpott lost her appeal against her 17 year sentence for killing her six children in a house fire in Derby. On what basis did she appeal? And why was her appeal rejected?

Background Facts

Mairead Philpott’s husband, Mick Philpott, hatched a plan to start a fire with petrol to frame his former mistress, Lisa Willis, so as to gain an advantage in a custody battle over her five children. Ms Willis and her children had previously lived with Mr and Mrs Philpott and their six children and had recently left, taking her five children with her. Mr Philpott was concerned his previous convictions would harm his chances of securing custody and therefore intended to frame Ms Willis for the fire to improve his chances.

As part of the plan, Mr Mosley would break down the back door and rescue the children. However, as Mr Philpott lit the fire after pouring petrol through the letter box, the downstairs exploded and the six children, who were upstairs sleeping, could not be reached. They all died from smoke inhalation.

The Philpotts were arrested after their hotel room was bugged by police following the fire. Mick Philpott was recorded as telling his wife to ‘stick to her story’. Forensics showed that all three individuals had the same petrol as used in the fire on their clothes.

Mick and Mairead Philpott denied manslaughter but were found guilty at Nottingham Crown Court after less than eight hours of deliberation by the jury (for more information see this article). Paul Mosley was also found guilty after denying manslaughter. Mick Philpot and Paul Mosley were found guilty unanimously, while Mairead Philpot was found guilty by a majority verdict.

Mairead Philpott was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment along with Paul Mosley. Mick Philpott was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum of 15 years imprisonment (for more information on life sentences, see this article).

The Appeal: Procedure

Both Mairead Philpott and Paul Mosely wanted to appeal the length of their sentences.

Friday’s hearing was the result of the following procedural steps. Philpott and Mosely had a right to appeal the length of their sentence, as do all convicted offenders, under section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The appeal must be made within 28 days from the date of sentence and can only be heard if leave (or permission) to appeal is granted under section 11 of the 1968 Act.

The reasons (or grounds) for the appeal are normally considered by a single judge on the case papers alone; there will be no actual hearing. The judge can grant leave (permission) to appeal if they feel there are grounds for an appeal or they can reject the appeal if they find there are no grounds for an appeal. Both Philpott’s and Mosley’s applications for permission to appeal were rejected.

When an application for permission to appeal is rejected, the applicant can make a renewed application for appeal within 14 days of the refusal under rule 65.5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2013. These renewed applications are heard in person by a full court of three judges. If leave is granted the Court of Appeal can then proceed directly to consider the appeal itself.

Philpott and Mosley both made renewed applications. Mosley abandoned his appeal the day before the case was heard, so the hearing only related to Philpott. This is what we saw televised on Friday (for more information on televising proceedings in the Court of Appeal, see this article). Unusually for the Court of Appeal it sat in Nottingham; the Court of Appeal normally sits in London.

The Appeal: Arguments and Judgement

So what was argued on behalf of Philpott? It was argued that her sentence was ‘manifestly excessive’ because ‘[her] utter dependence ... on Mick Philpott, whilst not excusing culpability, legally or morally, was not given sufficient weight in assessing the length of her sentence. In essence then, it was argued that her sentence was too long because the sentencing judge failed to sufficiently consider how manipulated and dominated Mairead Philpott was by Mick Philpott – she simply was not that blameworthy.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. Although it granted leave to appeal because of the unique features of the case, it held the sentence was justified for four reasons. Firstly, it was not a ‘spur of the moment’ plan; it had been carefully and deliberately thought out. Secondly, the risks of pouring petrol inside a building and setting it alight must have been obvious. Thirdly, Philpott actually participated in setting the fire as petrol was found on her clothes. Finally, she was capable of standing up to Mick Philpott but did not do so on this occasion. Overall then, the sentence reflected her level of blameworthiness.

Conclusion

In my view it cannot be said that the decision of the Court of Appeal is wrong. It was an exceptionally serious crime that claimed the lives of six young children. That is deserving of severe punishment.

What are your views?