Turner, R v [2017] NICA 52 (19 September 2017)

Turner, R v [2017] NICA 52 (19 September 2017)

The Court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to set a higher starting point for both appellants due to the gratuitous violence and multiple injuries inflicted. The discount for guilty plea was appropriate given the timing and circumstances, including the lack of early admissions and attempts to minimise responsibility. However, the Court found that the roles of the brothers warranted some differentiation, reducing James Turner's tariff to 15 years while refusing leave to appeal for William Turner.

Citation
[2017] NICA 52
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Applicant: William Turner; Applicant: James Henry Turner
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
19 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part for James Turner; refused for William Turner.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Murder, Guilty Plea Discount, Joint Enterprise, Grievous Bodily Harm
Criminal Law Sentencing Murder Guilty Plea Discount Joint Enterprise Grievous Bodily Harm

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

William Turner

Applicant

James Henry Turner

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in setting the tariff for murder for William Turner and James Turner
  2. 2 Whether the discount for guilty plea was adequate in both cases
  3. 3 Whether the evidence supported a finding of intent to kill for both appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to set a higher starting point for both appellants due to the gratuitous violence and multiple injuries inflicted. The discount for guilty plea was appropriate given the timing and circumstances, including the lack of early admissions and attempts to minimise responsibility. However, the Court found that the roles of the brothers warranted some differentiation, reducing James Turner's tariff to 15 years while refusing leave to appeal for William Turner.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part for James Turner; refused for William Turner.

Orders

  • Refuse leave to appeal for William Turner; tariff remains at 17 years.
  • Allow appeal for James Turner; tariff reduced to 15 years.