Life sentence justified for cruel attacker

Social enquiry report not a prerequisite, say appeal judges

News, 7 April 2005

A social enquiry report is not a prerequisite to the imposition of a discretionary life sentence, even if it is for an extended sentence, the criminal appeal court has ruled.

Three judges led by Lord Gill, the Lord Justice Clerk, gave this ruling in refusing an appeal by Martin Hamilton against a life sentence with a punishment part of nine years, imposed by Lord Kingarth in the High Court at Inverness.

Hamilton had been convicted of 11 charges, committed over a period of months, involving abduction, assault, robbery and being concerned in supplying drugs. One victim had been beaten with a carpet sweeper, had a spoon thrust into his eye socket and had his hair set alight. Another had been repeatedly stabbed in the face, shut in a cupboard, had boiling water poured over him and racially abused. Several had drug problems, one owed money to Hamilton and one had resisted his homosexual advances.

Hamilton had argued that a discretionary life sentence was a sentence of last resort and an extended sentence should have been imposed if the extension period could provide the necessary protection for the public. The judge should have obtained a social enquiry report, as would have been mandatory for an extended sentence, and a risk assessment.

The judges disagreed. Lord Gill, speaking for the court, said that it was understandable that the legislation should require a report in the case of an extended sentence since the offender would be entitle to release after serving two thirds of the sentence. A life prisoner's release, on the other hand, would depend on the circumstances prevailing and the risk assessment made at the time release was being considered - though different considerations applied to sex offenders, as the court could not predict the offender's response to sex offender programmes.

In the present case, for Hamilton's "repeated acts of sadistic violence", which the trial judge had described as "horrifying assaults in the nature of tortures, or by means of quite appalling threats", inducing "real terror" in his victims even if he had been crossed in only minor ways, the sentence was justified.

The court's opinion can be read at www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CHJAC44.html .