Murderer's prison term is reduced

Published on: Tuesday 19 February 2008 15:11

An aggrieved tenant who stabbed his sleeping landlord to death at his Eastbourne home has won a three-year reduction in the minimum period he must spend behind bars for the murder.

Philip Hughes, 44, was convicted at Lewes Crown Court last July of the murder of 67-year-old Harold 'Ken' Whittall, at his home in Whitley Road, and was jailed for life.

He was ordered to serve at least 20 years before even applying for parole, but after an appeal to three top judges at the Criminal Appeal Court in London, that term was reduced to 17 years.

Mr Justice Hedley, who sat with Lord Justice Keene and Judge Hall, said the trial judge had wrongly regarded certain facts of the case as aggravating its seriousness and so imposed a minimum term that was too long.

Today's decision means Hughes will have to serve at least 17 years before applying for release and will only be granted his freedom if he can convince the Parole Board he is safe enough to live in the community.

Giving the judgment, the judge outlined the facts of the brutal murder, which was thought to have taken place after Mr Whittall asked Hughes to leave the home which they shared.

After consuming a large quantity of alcohol, he took a knife from the kitchen, walked into Mr Whittall's bedroom and, as he lay asleep, stabbed him several times in the chest.

Hughes called emergency services in an attempt to save his landlord, but Mr Whittall did not regain consciousness before dying.

When setting Hughes' minimum term, the Crown Court judge said he would take a starting point of 15 years and add five more years to take account of the aggravating features of the offence.

These included the fact that the victim was far older than his killer, was vulnerable in that he was asleep and unable to defend himself, that Hughes had taken a knife deliberately and that he had intended to kill.

Barrister Julian Dale, representing Hughes, argued the judge had been wrong to consider all of those matters as aggravating the murder.

The fact that the victim was asleep, in particular, should not have been taken account of as aggravation, he told the judges.

Allowing the appeal, Mr Justice Hedley said, "In the circumstances, Mr Dale succeeds in persuading us that the judge was in error in taking so high a minimum term on the basis of the aggravating factors that he was entitled to take into account.

"That said, that must immediately be qualified by the entitlement of a judge, who has presided over a trial, to form a view about the aggravating factors he is entitled to take into account.

"It is our view that the learned judge was well entitled to come to the conclusion that the starting point of 15 years could properly be exceeded in this case, but, as we have said, we are persuaded that he exceeded it by too much."

When, and if, he is released, Hughes will remain on licence for the rest of his days, subject to immediate return to prison if he puts a foot wrong.

OTHER CASES 

R v D (2012) Multiple rape allegations relating to Portuguese community, including a bad character evidence relating to incest allegations from Madeira in the 1980′s. Complex cross-examination through Italian and Portuguese interpreters.

R v C (2012) Defending white witch on charges of sexual assault.

R v E (2012) Defending man accused of New Year’s Eve rape following discovery of couple by police in an alleyway.

R v O (2011) Defending main defendant on charges of homosexual rape and joint ABH involving alleged use of a date rape drug. Sexual charges dropped by the Crown following cross-examination.

EASTBOURNE CHAMBERS

Julian Dale, was one of the founding members of the Eastbourne Chambers about 19 years ago. He practices exclusively in the field of criminal law.

Julian spends his time mostly in the Crown Court, He is instructed in a wide variety of matters including murders, serious sexual offences, large scale public disorders and fraud. 

He is a Bar Council approved Pupil Supervisor, mostly taking on criminal defence cases.

Julian says that he comes from a science background. He claims to have an interest in interpreting and evaluating forensic evidence, though there was a time where he fought shy of examining the medical evidence in one notable case.

Julian is recommended in The Legal 500. He lives with his family in Eastbourne. His hobbies include singing with a swing band and performing in musicals.

Qualifications:       LLB Hons

Associations:        Criminal Bar

                          Association and Sussex Bar Mess

Inn & Year of Call:  Middle Temple 1991

Experience:           21 years

CONTACTS

Telephone:   01323 642102
Website:      http://www.eastbournechambers.co.uk

Company:     Eastbourne Chambers
Address:       5 Chiswick Place Eastbourne East Sussex
Postal code:  BN214NH

LINKS

http://www.eastbournechambers.co.uk/julian-dale.aspx (old website)

http://www.legal500.com/c/regional-bar/south-eastern-circuit

http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/local-news/murderer-s-prison-term-is-reduced

http://www.justcite.com/barrister/julian.dale/

http://www.sussexchambers.co.uk/members/julian-dale/

Julian Dale

ANATOMY OF A STITCH UP:

Set against a background of increasing pressure to gain convictions, many police officers fail to investigate fully for fear of finding inconvenient truths, which they will then have to pass to a defence team during the discovery process.

The fact is it is all too easy to put an innocent man behind bars where a blunderbuss serious of charges, often used in sexual assault cases, make it all but impossible to mount a defense with alibis for specific events claimed. (This may of itself breach Article 6 for a lack of detail, as is required by Article 6 (3) (a), but English defenders frequently fail to use this Article to pinpoint exactly what the Crown are alleging.)

This is called the 25-75% rule. Statistics prove that a single charge results in a conviction rate of 25%. This rises to 75% with four charges. Thus, the Crown simply have to add a couple of allegations - to be sure of obtaining a conviction. They do this by cajoling a person making an allegation, into agreeing that whatever he or she is claiming may have taken place more times than they are suggesting. The grateful claimant takes what social workers and police officers are suggesting, as a sign that they believe the claims - so, elaboration begins.

If you are very lucky, this may eventually be the undoing of the case, even though this may be years later, having served a prison sentence and having had your life ruined.

In most cases an allegation grows like a pyramid, once the system kicks in. Unfortunately, at each stage of the process, the allegation grows as it is passed from one person in the chain to another, each adding their own interpretation and filling in the blanks, so to speak.

Where an allegation has been made (which is often the case) by a young girl or boy who may find him or herself in an uncomfortable family situation, which could be a combination of loneliness, stress from school work, social stresses from friends, or lack of them, not feeling important or feeling ignored. Sometimes just being bored or mischievous, or simply bearing a grudge - the child will often pander to the attention they are suddenly receiving, and sometimes they are simply bunny boilers, out to ruin someone they feel abandoned by...... It's a win, win situation for the accuser, with no comeback at all if found to be lying!!! They can simply move onto the next target, or go about life as usual - since nobody knows who they are. Should there not be a register of accusers?

The policies of Labour's Harriet Harman, Minister of State for Women, are designed to raise conviction rates is sex related cases, regardless of evidence. This has resulted in many more appeals and innocent men being freed, having been convicted on little or no evidence. It begs belief that such cases are brought, considering the irreversible harm caused to the victim, in these case the person defendant.

One key element in raising convictions in sex cases, was to shift the burden of proving guilt, to the defence to prove innocence. This was achieved simply by arbrogating the need for a Judge to give a warning to a Jury, that it is dangerous to convict on the unsupported say so of a a claimant - where this had so many times in the past proved to unreliable evidence. Nobody even noticed this slight of hand be the Justice Minister in the 1990s. The results though were devastating. The conviction rate soared. It was no longer "your word against hers". It is now "you are guilty mate, unless you can prove otherwise."

Before this arbrogation, it was the job of the Crown to prove guilt. That is no longer necessary. It is a witch hunt, plain and simple.

In many cases (number unknown) innocent men are rotting in jail, since there is no appeal for them unless fresh evidence surfaces, which may only happen once a bunny boiler repeat offends. Otherwise, there is no justice for men. A point overlooked by Harriet in her rush to up statistics for voters.

The English Appeal system relies on a Single Judge, who is usually biased in the extreme, no matter what HM Courts Service puts out. The Single Judge system breaches Article 6, where it is a paper application. This has been held consistently in the European Court, the exception being where an appellant has the benefit of solid (unrestricted) drafting of grounds of appeal.

In many cases it is the Court Administration that slips up, refusing transcripts - which may later be found to have been vital for the application to the single judge. By then it is all too late. Once the single judge has refused an application, that is held to have been an appeal, even though there has been no oral exchange, where a barrister may point a judge to evidence that is very often overlooked.

A later application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, faces new obstacles, for even if you can now prove that the single judge got it wrong, or that your barrister was negligent, you may not argue anything that has been argued before. Catch 22? No, it's much worse than that - it is a State sanctioned stitch up, which breaches Article 17. The reason the State get away with this, is because your average lawyer is not aware of Article 17, and Article 13 is not included in the Human Rights Act 1998. it was deliberately left out so that Her Majesty did not have to provide an: "effective remedy." Which of course means, that they can make it up as they go along. 

ANATOMY OF A STITCH UP - FLOW CHART

In a case where sexual assault is claimed, it is vital for investigators to act quickly to prevent potential witnesses from rehearsing and developing a version of a false claim. The investigators in this case allowed the claimant two weeks to rehearse a story, all the while she was obtaining feedback from social services and friends as to what to say such that it might be acceptable (believed). Coaching or rehearsing a story is of course illegal. Clearly, in this case coaching is a major feature. SOCAP procedures are designed to prevent coaching by obtaining a statement the moment an allegation is made. By this means false allegations may be revealed by preventing changes to a story that repair obvious lies that a defence will be able to disprove.

Clearly, in allowing 2 weeks for the claimant to speak with friends and social services, the Sussex Police were negligent in this case, depriving the defence of a valuable record of changes in the story as the allegation was developed.  Was this simple negligence or criminal negligence? The CPS knew this was going on and used it to their advantage.

RIGHT OF REPLY

If any person who wishes to refute the facts as published herein, we would like to hear from you. A failure to respond to this invitation will be taken as deemed acceptance.