Lee Rigby Murderer to Appeal Sentence

It has emerged that one of the killers of soldier Lee Rigby has secured permission to appeal against his sentence.

The Facts

Michael Adebowale, 22, was sentenced alongside Michael Adebolajo, 29, at the Old Bailey in February this year for the murder of the soldier in Woolwich last year.

The pair ran down the solider in a car before attacking him brutally with knives. Adebolajo hacked at the soldier’s head, while Adebowale stabbed his torso. For more information on the facts, see this earlier article.

Mr Justice Sweeney sentenced the pair to life imprisonment. Adebolajo received a whole life term, meaning he will spend the remainder of his life in prison. Adebowale was sentenced to a minimum of 45 years in prison before he can be considered for release. They were sentenced in their absence after being removed for disrupting the proceedings. The judge described their actions as ‘sickening and pitiless conduct’, adding that the pair had shown no remorse.

It has now emerged that a High Court judge has granted Adebowale permission to appeal against his sentence. It follows earlier news that Adebolajo is to appeal against both his conviction and sentence.

What is the law on appealing against a sentence?

Appeals Against Sentence: The Law

Adebowale had a right to appeal the length of his sentence, as do all convicted offenders, under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. However, leave (or permission) to appeal must be granted by the Court of Appeal, unless the sentencing judge grants leave within 28 days of passing sentence: section 11 of the 1968 Act.

Where it is necessary to seek leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal, the application must, under section 18 of the 1968 Act, be made within 28 days of the sentence.

The reasons (or grounds) for the appeal will then normally be considered by a single judge on the case papers alone; there will be no actual hearing. The judge can grant leave 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. It appears in this case that permission was granted by a single High Court judge on the papers.

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 at least two judges. It will often be three judges. If leave is granted the Court of Appeal can then proceed directly to consider the appeal itself.

Once leave is granted the appeal against sentence will be heard by at least two, and often three, judges. There are a variety of grounds for appealing against the sentence imposed. These include, but are not limited to:

- that the sentence was ‘manifestly excessive’ (the most common ground of appeal);

- that the sentence was wrong in law; and

- that there were procedural errors.

It is unclear what Adebowale’s grounds of appeal are.

If the Court of Appeal agrees that Adebowale’s sentence was inappropriate it can quash (cancel) the original sentence and substitute any sentence that could have been lawfully passed on Adebowale by the Crown Court, so long as it does not treat him more severely: section 11 of the 1968 Act.

The appeal is awaited with interest.

What are your thoughts on the original sentence?

Rigby Murderers Sentenced to Life Imprisonment

This week the murderers of solider Lee Rigby were sentenced to life imprisonment. What is the law behind these sentences?

The Facts

Michael Adebolajo, 29, and Michael Adebowale, 22, were sentenced at the Old Bailey following their conviction for murdering soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich last year.

The pair ran down the solider in a car before attacking him brutally with knives. Adebolajo hacked at the soldier’s head, while Adebowale stabbed his torso. For more information on the facts, see this earlier article.

Mr Justice Sweeney sentenced the pair to life imprisonment. Adebolajo received a whole life term, meaning he will spend the remainder of his life in prison. Adebowale was sentenced to a minimum of 45 years in prison before he can be considered for release. They were sentenced in their absence after being removed for disrupting the proceedings.

The judge described their actions as ‘sickening and pitiless conduct’, adding that the pair had shown no remorse.

What is the law behind these sentences?

The Sentence for Murder

Section 1(1) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 abolished the death penalty for murder. It provides that convicted murderers will instead be sentenced to life imprisonment. There is no other sentence: all murderers receive a life sentence.

Setting the Tariff

Section 269 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides that when a court is sentencing an individual to life imprisonment for murder it must set a ‘tariff’. This is a fixed minimum period that the offender will serve in prison.

The court is required to fix the tariff by reference to the seriousness of the murder. The more serious the murder is the higher the tariff will be. Schedule 21 of the 2003 Act details guidelines for what the tariff will be in certain cases. For example, a murder with no especially bad features will typically attract a tariff of 15 years.

However, if the court decides the seriousness of the murder is ‘exceptionally high’ then it can make a whole life order, where the offender is required to spend the rest of their life in prison: life means life Schedule 21 suggests that whole life orders are appropriate in cases such as the murder of a child which involves sexual motivation and murder for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause (essentially a terrorist act).

Having decided the starting point, the court is then required to consider any factors that aggravate or mitigate the severity of the offence and increase or decrease the tariff accordingly.

The Early Release Provisions

In all cases where a whole life order is not imposed, section 269 requires the court to order that the ‘early release provisions’ will apply as soon as the offender has served the period of their tariff. The early release provisions are found in Chapter 2 of Part II of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. They provide that once an offender has served their tariff they must be released when the Parole Board recommends their release. The Parole Board will recommend the offender’s release only if it is satisfied it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public to continue to detain the offender in prison.

After Release

When a life prisoner is released they are released on licence. They must comply with any conditions set out in the licence. The life sentence still hangs over the offender for the rest of their life. If they commit a further offence, breach their licence conditions, or otherwise become a danger to the public, they can be returned to prison under their life sentence. They will only be released again when the Parole Board recommends it.

Application to the Rigby Murderers

Mr Justice Sweeney concluded that the murder was a terrorist act and the seriousness of the offence was exceptionally high. Therefore the starting point for both Adebolajo and Adebowale was a whole life order. The judge then had to consider whether there were any mitigating factors to reduce the sentence.

In the case of Adebolajo, Mr Justice Sweeney concluded that there was no mitigation. He had been the leader. The seriousness of what he did was exceptionally high and the requirements of punishment and retribution made a whole life order a just penalty. Therefore a whole life order was imposed. Following the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in R v McCoughlin there was nothing objectionable in imposing this sentence. For more on that decision, see this article.

In respect of Adebowale, the judge concluded that a whole life sentence was not appropriate because of his lesser role, younger age and continuing mental condition. Therefore a tariff of 45 years was imposed. He will be eligible for release after that period if the Parole Board considers he is no longer a danger to the public.

Conclusion

The murder of Lee Rigby was a brutal crime that shook the country. The strong sentences imposed are to be welcomed. However, it must be remembered that Adebolajo is appealing his conviction, arguing that the judge made various legal errors. His appeal is unlikely to succeed. For more information on the appeal, see this article.

What are your thoughts on the sentences?

Lee Rigby Killer to Appeal Conviction

One of the two men found guilty of the horrific murder of solider Lee Rigby is to appeal against his conviction. What is the law on appeals?

Introduction

In December 2013, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were found guilty of murdering the solider outside his army barracks in Woolwich, south London. The pair is yet to be sentenced. The judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, adjourned sentencing to await the outcome of another appeal which is considering whether whole life sentences are lawful (for more information on that appeal, see this article).

Adebolajo is now seeking to appeal against his conviction. He will be appealing on five separate grounds, one of which is that the judge refused to allow his defence – that he was acting as a soldier – to be determined by the jury. He alleges that the United Kingdom is at war with Muslims and therefore his attack was a military strike. In English law, murder cannot be committed in the heat and exercise of war, so a military strike can theoretically be a defence.

What is the law on appeals against conviction?

Appeals Against Conviction: Permission

Adebolajo is entitled, as are all convicted offenders, to appeal against his conviction under section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. In order to appeal, section 1 of the 1968 Act provides that the offender has to obtain permission (or leave) to appeal from the Court of Appeal. Alternatively, the trial court can grant permission within 28 days of the conviction. Ordinarily it is necessary to seek permission from the Court of Appeal. The application for permission to appeal (which identifies the reasons, or grounds, for appeal) must be made within 28 days of the conviction, under section 18 of the 1968 Act.

The grounds for appeal are normally considered by a single judge on the case papers alone; there will be no actual hearing. The judge can grant leave 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. Should the application for permission to appeal be 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, normally by three judges.

Appeal Against Conviction: Grounds for Appeal

In the event that leave to appeal is granted, the question to be determined at the appeal is set out in section 2 of the 1986 Act. That provides that an appeal will be successful if, and only if, the Court of Appeal considers that the conviction is ‘unsafe’.

Any argument can be deployed to contend that a conviction is unsafe. Common arguments focus on evidence that was arguably wrongfully admitted or excluded, alleged errors on the part of lawyers, defects in the indictment and the conduct of the judge.

In the event that the Court of Appeal agrees the conviction is unsafe, it shall quash the conviction under section 2 of the 1968 Act. It may order a retrial under section 7 of the 1968 Act if the interests of justice so require. Otherwise section 2 provides the defendant shall be treated as though they were acquitted at trial – that is, found not guilty.

Comment

I would be surprised if Adebolajo’s appeal is successful. The evidence against him was remarkably strong. It is almost impossible to argue he killed Lee Rigby in the course of a war, and certainly not in the heat of a war. Even if there were errors during the trial, it would be surprising if they were enough to convince the Court of Appeal that Adebolajo’s conviction is unsafe.