I accept that argument, so perhaps there ought to be different "classes" of murder, as I think there is in some other countries, but with a Class 1 for totally unjustified killings which received "permanent life sentences".
I'm not actually sure that that's necessary as
Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020 gives us all the flexibility that we require to deal with these issues as it sets the starting points for a minimum term when it comes to the mandatory life sentence for murder.
It tells us that if the court considers that the seriousness of the offence (or a combination of the offence or one and more others associated with it) is exceptionally high and the offender was aged 21 or over when the offence was committed then the appropriate starting point is a whole life order (Schedule 21 Paragraph 2(1)).
Cases which would normally be considered as meeting that level of seriousness are defined as being the murder of two or more people where each involved a substantial degree of premeditation or planning, the abduction of the victim or sexual or sadistic conduct. As well as the murder of a child involving the abduction of the child or sexual or sadistic motivation, the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of their duties (if committed after 13 April 2015), a murder for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause or finally where the offender has previously committed murder (Schedule 21 Paragraph 2(2)).
Where a case doesn't meet the above criteria we move on and where the court feels that the seriousness of the offence (or associated offence(s)) is particularly high and the offender is 18 or over when the offence was committed then our starting point is a minimum term of 30 years (Schedule 21 Paragraph 3(1)).
Cases which would normally meet the criteria for seriousness include a murder involving a firearm or explosive, a murder done for gain (such as in the course of or furtherance of a robber, burglary, for payment or in the expectation of a gain as a result of the death), to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice, murder involving sexual or sadistic conduct, murder of two or more persons, a murder aggravated by racial or religious hostility or hostility related to sexual orientation, murder aggravated by hostility related to disability or transgender identity (where committed after 3 December 2012), the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of their duty before 13 April 2015 or a murder that would have fit into paragraph 2(2) (see above) but the offender was aged under 21 when committed (Schedule 21 Paragraph 3(2)).
I suspect that in this case we're going to be having a starting point of 30 years due to the use of a firearm.
There's then a couple of others that follow similar lines to the above, murder if you've brought a knife or other weapon to the scene intending to commit any offence or have it available as a weapon and used it to commit a murder then that's a 25 year minimum term (Schedule 21 Paragraph 4), if you were aged 18 or over and none of the proceeding apply then its 15 years minimum (Schedule 21 Paragraph 5), if you were under 18 then the starting point is 12 years minimum (Schedule 21 Paragraph 6).
The schedule also goes on to give us indication as to the factors that may be relevant to aggravation or mitigation (that is things which may increase the starting point or reduce it) and to my reading the list is not intended to be exhaustive. For instance things that would aggravate include a significant degree of planning or premeditation, if the victim was particularly vulnerable due to age or disability (one that I suspect will apply in this case), abuse of a position of trust, and others (Schedule 21 Paragraph 9). Factors of mitigation include an intention to cause serious bodily harm rather than kill, lack of premeditation, a belief that the murder was an act of mercy, and others (Schedule 21 Paragraph 10).
So hopefully we can see that already there is a massive amount of flexibility available within the existing sentencing regime for murder without the need for a separate category of murders that depend on the severity of the murder. I can see how having a nice neat "This murder was so serious it is Murder in the First Degree" would appeal but I'm not sure it actually serves any purpose when we can deal with the issue of severity using the sentencing law that is already on the books.
As an amateur who is interested in the law it strikes me that our fella in this case is likely to face a minimum term of at least 30 years and I suspect that it may well go higher depending on the level of aggravation. It's always possible that they might manage to get it reduced to something below 30 years (could argue that it wasn't premeditated and if they plead guilty at an early point that can also lead to a reduction) but I'd be surprised if after weighing up aggravation, any other offences that were being committed at the same time, any criminal history alongside any mitigation was enough to get it much if at all below 30 years and I still wouldn't be surprised if it ended up at more than 30 years.
Considering they're 36 at the moment they'll be doing extra ordinarily well to see the outside of a prison, on licence recall not a free man, before they're in their late 60s.
Of course the above presupposes that they're guilty. At the moment of course they benefit from the presumption of innocence and the Crown Prosecution Service will have to persuade a jury to be sure of guilt first!
