Mays, R. v [2021] EWCA Crim 187 (05 February 2021)

Mays, R. v [2021] EWCA Crim 187 (05 February 2021)

The trial judge was entitled to select a 15-year starting point for the minimum term, as she could not be sure to the criminal standard that the murder involved sexual or sadistic conduct. The aggravating factors, including the defilement and destruction of the body, justified a significant uplift to a 25-year minimum term. The sentence was not unduly lenient.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Crim 187
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Offender: Shane Lee Mays
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) / Application to Review Sentence for Undue Leniency
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Murder, Sentencing, Unduly Lenient Sentence, Minimum Term, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
Criminal Law Murder Sentencing Unduly Lenient Sentence Minimum Term Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Shane Lee Mays

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) / Application to Review Sentence for Undue Leniency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the minimum term of 25 years for murder was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge applied the correct starting point under Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Code
  3. 3 Whether the murder involved sexual or sadistic conduct warranting a higher starting point

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to select a 15-year starting point for the minimum term, as she could not be sure to the criminal standard that the murder involved sexual or sadistic conduct. The aggravating factors, including the defilement and destruction of the body, justified a significant uplift to a 25-year minimum term. The sentence was not unduly lenient.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Permission to refer the sentence as unduly lenient is refused.