Weekly Digest: 4 June 2018

Stephen Grainger was found guilty of the manslaughter of his wife, Simone Grainger. In the early hours of 4 November 2017, in their shared home, Mrs Grainger attempted to stab Mr Grainger with a pair of scissors. Mr Grainger disarmed her and proceeded to restrain her in a carotid sleeper hold for at least 15-30 seconds, which ultimately caused her death. The force which was used by Mr Grainger was significant and, as the jury’s verdict indicated, went beyond what was reasonable in the circumstances. The judge also found, on the basis of the pathology reports, that other facial injuries must have been inflicted by the offender.

In the judge’s opinion, this was not an exceptionally serious case which warranted a sentence of life imprisonment, nor was the offender “dangerous” within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In terms of aggravating factors, there were four. First, the circumstances of the case constituted an episode of domestic violence committed in the home; in the judge’s view, Mrs Grainger should have been safe in her own home and yet the offender killed her there, while their children slept upstairs. Second, Mr Grainger’s actions amounted to a violent, sustained assault on the deceased. Third, on finding his wife dead, the offender did nothing to help her or call for assistance; rather, his first instinct was to obtain drugs for himself. Finally, the death of Mrs Grainger had an appalling effect on her family.

As for mitigating factors, there were five identified by the judge. First, the offender had no relevant previous convictions. Second, there was an absence of any proven previous episodes of violence committed by the offender on Mrs Grainger. Third, the offender had been subjected to some threats and abuse by Mrs Grainger in the period leading up to her death, including the fact that she had stabbed a sofa in his presence a few weeks before and she did try to attack him before her death. Fourth, the offender was suffering from depression at the time he killed his wife. Finally, Mr Grainger had shown a degree of remorse.

In view of the above, the judge imposed a sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment.

Mr Robinson and Mr Williams were both convicted of murder; Mr May and Mr Barnett pleaded guilty to the offence of assisting an offender, contrary to s. 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. The offences occurred on 13 September 2017 when Merkel Sterling, a 34-year-old man, was shot by a submachine gun fired from a VW Golf as it drove slowly past him on Great Hampton Row, Birmingham. Mr Robinson was driving the VW Golf and Mr Williams fired the submachine gun. Mr May and Mr Barnett were following behind in Ford Mondeo with false number plates and were to help the shooter escape from the scene of the crime. The attack was intended as a gang’s retaliation for a failed attack on Mr Robinson.

The offence of murder was aggravated by four factors. First, there had been a significant degree of planning. Second, the context to the murder was gang violence. Third, the firearm used was a submachine gun, which is a particularly dangerous weapon. Fourth, in the case of Mr Robinson, the offence was committed whilst he was still the subject of an injunction under ss. 34 – 36 of the Police and Crime Act 2009, which was intended to prevent him from taking part in gang-related violence in the area the offence was committed. Both Mr Robinson and Mr Williams had previous convictions for drugs-related offences, but none for violence. Apart from their ages, 24 and 23 respectively, there was little in the way of mitigation.

The mandatory life sentence was imposed, and a term of 33 years’ imprisonment was set as the minimum term for both offenders, less the time they had spent on remand.

As for the offence of assisting an offender, after a 25% discount for their guilty pleas, Mr May was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment and Mr Barnett 2½ years’ detention in a Young Offender Institution. The latter benefited from the fact that he was only 18 at the time of the offence and had no previous convictions.

In the early morning of 11 December 2017, all three offenders were involved in the planning and execution of an attack on the Pearson household with petrol bombs. The attack was the culmination of a family feud between the Pearson family and the offenders. Mr Worrall threw one petrol bomb into the Pearson house, and Mr Bolland the other. It was the latter which set light to the house and led to the death of the four children inside, and the serious injury of the two individuals who managed to escape.

Mr Bolland was convicted of murder of the four children and the attempted murder of those who escaped the fire. Mr Worrall was convicted of the murder of the four children on the basis that he intended to cause the occupants of the house really serious harm. Ms Brierley was convicted of the manslaughter of the four children; although she did not intend harm, her convictions meant that she assisted and encouraged the attack with petrol bombs.

In Mr Bolland’s case, there were no mitigating factors, other than the very limited benefit to be gained from the absence of any serious offending in the past. He was sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment, with a concurrent sentence of 25 years on each count of attempted murder.

As for Mr Worral, there was, again, limited mitigation to be found in the fact he did not intend to kill and his limited criminal history. The appropriate minimum term was, accordingly, 37 years, with concurrent sentences of 19 years on each count of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent.

Finally, Ms Brierly received 21 years’ detention in a young offender institution on each count, to run concurrently. Account had to be taken of her age, 20 at the time of the offence, and the fact that she was in an abusive relationship with Mr Bolland. Nevertheless, the sentence for manslaughter had to bear some relationship to the sentence for the offence of murder in the circumstances of the case.

The chief inspector of prisons has had to take emergency action to improve conditions at HMP Exeter, a jail with soaring levels of violence and self-harm. He has put the Justice Secretary on notice that he must explain how the conditions can be improved.

The full piece can be read here.

After the government promised to stop such ordeals, a report has found that 24% of domestic abuse survivors have been cross-examined by their abusers in court. Survivors reported that they were repeatedly not believed, blamed for reporting abuse and seen as unstable by judges, barristers, and CAFCASS officers.

The full piece can be read here.

Lawyers have accused the Criminal Cases Review Commission of a common pattern of failings such as not interviewing witnesses, not understanding the significance of non-disclosure and a misunderstanding of key points of law.

The full piece can be read here.

Tommy Robinson, founder of the EDL, has been jailed for 13 months for contempt of court. Robinson was arrested after broadcasting an hour-long video outside Leeds Crown Court in which he made comments that risked causing a trial to collapse.

The full piece can be read here.