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?

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.

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?