Anwar Rosser – the last whole life tariff?

keighley murder13

Facts

On 20th January 2013 Anwar Rosser went to a friends house after being out drinking. He asked to stay the night, which he was allowed to. During the night, he murdered Riley Turner, the four year old son of his friends. Having pleaded guilty, he was sentenced on 13th February 2014 to life imprisonment, with life here meaning life.

The murder was brutal. Full details are set out in the sentencing remarks which make for horrible reading. The Judge was satisfied that the murder was ‘sadistic’ (and there is a strong suggestion of a sexual motive), which is hard to argue with. Mr Rosser was arrested the next day.

 

Sentence

The Judge was bound to give a life sentence, the question would be what the tariff would be (see here for our factsheet). As this was a murder of a child for a sadistic motive, the starting point was a whole life tariff.

The Judge set out four aggravating factors:

  1. the sexual motive
  2. breach of trust (he was invited to stay the night)
  3. premeditation
  4. previous convictions

The Judge notes that the 4th factor is much less serious than the others, which is clearly right. In fact, it appears that his convictions were all for very minor offences and so should probably have been discounted. This can be seen by the fact that a caution for ABH in 1996. The facts are not known but are presumably unusual as the Judge said “How such a serious offence could merit just a caution I do not understand“. An ABH is certainly not always serious. Also, given that Mr Rosser would have been only 15 at the time, a caution may not have been at all inappropriate.

The Judge lists various factors that are put forward as mitigating features, but then effectively discounts them. There was some (but very little) mitigation to be had from his personality disorder and his remorse.

Mr Rosser pleaded guilty which would attract credit (apart from the whole life tariff), but the Judge did say that he was caught ‘red handed’.

In light of everything the Judge said that there was no reason to step back from the starting point of a whole life tariff.

 

Comment

This was a brutal murder and if whole life tariffs are lawful (see below) then it is hard to see it did not merit one. I would question the importance of the aggravating features in assessing whether a whole life tariff is imposed, because it is generally those aggravating features that lead to the case being put into the whole life bracket in the first place.

Leaving aside my own views on whole life tariffs, it seems to me that given everything (especially the guilty plea) a long determinate tariff (around 35-40 years) would have been appropriate. I doubt that the Court of Appeal will touch this one though.

 

Why could this be the last whole life tariff?

Because of the cases currently going through the Court of Appeal concerning the compatibility of a whole life tariff with Art 3 ECHR. The judgment is due in a couple of weeks. My prediction is that whole life tariffs will be held to be lawful and so Mr Rosser’s sentence will stand.

The Judge decided to leave the question of the legality to the Court of Appeal, which seems to be a sensible one.

I would take issue with what he says (paras 40-41) that Vinter v UK was about “reviews rather than the legality of whole life orders as such” and that the “only permissible approach is to continue to apply the domestic law“. Vinter makes clear (see para 122) that it is about the exact sentence that was imposed here rather than with a review. My own view is that a Judge is not obliged to impose a sentence that is unlawful, but again, I can see the merit in leaving it until the Court of Appeal gives their judgment.

 

Experts

The Judge made some interesting comments about the delays in the case that had been caused by the delays in the preparation of expert reports. This had the effect of putting the trial back by many months which “caused real and unacceptable suffering to Riley Turner’s family“.

The Judge identified the cause of the delays as (possibly) being “that experts take on too much work and do not provide clear information as to what they can and cannot do within the relevant timescale.”

In this, he is probably right, but his remarks don’t tell the full story. As well as cutting legal aid, the Government have been cutting back on the funding for experts on legal aid. They have been repeatedly warned that one consequence would be that many experts would simply stop doing legal aid work as it was not profitable. I don’t know if that was the problem in this case, but it may well be another example of the MoJ’s chickens coming home to roost.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in In the news on by .

About Dan Bunting

I'm a lawyer who works for myself. Legal geek, maths freak, general dullard and jack of all trades. Here’s a few views on law and occasional musings on life. Usual caveats about not relying on anything I say etc applies.

8 thoughts on “Anwar Rosser – the last whole life tariff?

  1. John Allman

    “I would question the importance of the aggravating features in assessing whether a whole life tariff is imposed, because it is generally those aggravating features that lead to the case being put into the whole life bracket in the first place.”

    I did not understand the argument in the above sentence. You seem to be saying that aggravating factors that rightly cause the court to *consider* a whole life tariff (in the sense that they put the crime into the relevant “bracket”) should not be allowed to influence the *outcome* of that consideration (namely: whether the whole life tariff rightly considered, is actually imposed).

    (I am not a lawyer, so my question might be naive.)

    Reply
  2. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

    This is too horrific for words I had to stop reading the sentencing remarks poor Riley, rest in peace.

    Reply
  3. D_T_T

    On the facts of the crime as described in the sentencing remarks, my personal view would be that if ever there were a case that deserved a whole life sentence, this is such a case. There was no real mitigation (except the plea) in respect of the brutal, premeditated and sexually and sadistically motivated (the court found) murder of a child in his family home, and considerable evidence that the child would have very sadly, badly suffered in the assaults and his death.

    That said, I am given mild pause for thought by the guilty plea. The evidence here appeared overwhelming, but a guilty plea still spares the family the ordeal of a trial and means someone has acknowledged their responsibility (up to a point). My concern is not really for this individual but more generally that if no credit at all is given for these kinds of guilty pleas then offenders will simply plead not guilty in future. I suppose the balance to that is that this particular offence was so appalling that it is difficult to see how, where the whole life sentence was available to the court, it could have been avoided. Given what happened to the victim, I would probably say that even if, for example, the perpetrator had turned himself in to begin with.

    I too thought the previous offences seemed relatively minor and the caution for the stated offence might be explainable. But a lot of murderers, I hear, oddly enough don’t have significant previous convictions.

    Reply
  4. Pete F

    I do not support whole life sentances as to me they are just a death sentance that takes a long time to carry out, and the length of the wait is inhuman.
    however after reading the full case file its hard to find any possibility of rehabilitation for the person who did these unspeakable things. What then as a society do we do with people like this, hang them? Whilst emotionally Im sure most people at first thought would aggree with this, what other options are avaliable for such a broken individual such as this

    Reply
  5. Andrew

    L-E-S I gave up too. I have read such things – not as bad as this – when I have had to professionally and loathed it. I got far enough to know that this foul man was in the house as a result of the child’s parents’ compassion and could go no further.

    I cannot but think that letting him rot till he dies is more severe than hanging and a good thing too. May the Court of Appeal uphold the sentence and may he live long.

    Reply
    1. Liberte, Egalite,

      This stayed with me and continues to haunt me. I told my colleagues about it, also mothers, their disgust hasn’t helped. Poor Riley’s short life ended so brutally it angers and upsets me. Is there any hope for mankind when people are capable of such evil atrocity.

      Reply
      1. John Allman

        “Poor Riley’s short life ended so brutally it angers and upsets me.”

        Me too.

        “Is there any hope for mankind when people are capable of such evil atrocity.”

        A Christian might say that there is no hope for any man or woman who does not sense that our Creator is angry and upset too, and that people are capable of such evil atrocity, and that this is just an extreme example of the evil that also contaminates him or her, and causes him or her m to indulge in less extreme wickedness of their own.

  6. Pingback: Joanna Dennehy and accomplices sentenced – another whole life order | UK Criminal Law Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s