Trevis, R v

On 4 July 2003 in the Birmingham Crown Court following a trial Tina Marie Trevis was found guilty of the murder on 2 October 2002 of Constance Richards, an 84 year old woman at her flat, 37B Frankfurt Street, Newtown. The jury were unanimous. On that day she was sentenced to life imprisonment and was also sentenced in respect of the burglary of the same premises in March 2002. In accordance with the position at that time, as the Trial Judge, on 16 July 2003 I reported to the Secretary of State and recommended that a tariff period of 16 years would, in all the circumstances of the case, meet the requirements of retribution and general deterrence. The matter now comes before me pursuant to Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to determine the minimum term Ms Trevis will serve for the purposes of punishment and retribution. The Secretary of State has not notified her of a minimum period to be served but has referred her case to this court for the making of an order under section 269 specifying the minimum term: see paragraph 6 of Schedule 22.

By paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 22 a reference under paragraph 6 is determined without an oral hearing. Tina Trevis has not responded to a letter from the court office, asking whether she wishes to apply for an oral hearing. While the court has power to direct an oral hearing in rare and exceptional cases, this is not such a case.

The circumstances of the offence are as follows. The deceased’s body was discovered by neighbours lying in her living room. She had been stabbed in the chest by a kitchen knife approximately three and a half inches long. She had also suffered injuries to the face including bruising and pinprick haemorrhages which the pathologist said indicated that she had been grabbed by the throat. Some of the injuries to the fact were inflicted with a set of ornamental bellows. The defendant’s fingerprints were found on a number of items in the flat. A fingerprint was also found on the handle of the bellows but no prints were recovered from the knife.

The defendant accepted that she went to the deceased’s home with intent to steal. It was the prosecution case that the defendant knew that the deceased regularly left her flat unsecured when she sent to feed birds in the courtyard next to her flat. Seven months earlier the defendant had gained entry to the flat by pretending that she had found the deceased’s handbag and stolen some £290. She pleaded guilty to this burglary.

The defendant stated that she found the deceased dead in the flat after entering to burgle it but denied she was the person who killed Mrs Richards, that she used any violence towards her, or was present when Mrs Richards was killed or during any part of the assault on her. She accepted that her failure to call for assistance even anonymously was callous. She did not know why she had just ignored the body and looked round the flat for things to steal.

The prosecution’s case was that this was a burglary of a woman known to be vulnerable which had gone wrong when the defendant had been discovered by Mrs Richards. The defendant had a drug habit and the prosecution case was that, having gone to the house to steal and being surprised by the deceased, had perhaps inflicted the injuries on Mrs Richards because she did not want to be recognised, she having burgled the premises seven months earlier. The defendant maintained that she was no longer a drug addict and had no need for money since the killing occurred on the day she had picked up her benefit money. She stated that she had a heroin habit in the Spring of 2002 but that by October she had been on a detoxification programme for three months.

Tina Trevis has a long history of offences of dishonesty including distraction thefts, the most recent of which before the charge of murder was from a housebound old age pensioner.

These facts are contained in the report I made to the Home Secretary. In that report I stated that it was difficult to assess the degree of dangerousness presented by the defendant:

“Her record indicates she is an opportunistic thief, perhaps (notwithstanding what she said) to feed a drug habit rather than a dangerously violent person. Nevertheless, this attack on an old lady was horrendous, although, the pathologist’s evidence was that, given the deceased’s age and frailty, only a moderate amount of force would have been needed to produce the bruising and the injuries due to asphyxia.”

“This was not a pre-meditated killing. It resulted from the deceased surprising the defendant in the house when she was there to steal. The jury probably convicted on the basis of an intent to cause grievous bodily harm rather than an intent to kill. That said, the violence was inflicted on a vulnerable old lady and there was no remorse expressed either after arrest or during the course of the trial.”

In determining the seriousness of the offence for the purposes of section 269 of the 2003 Act, I have had regard to the general principles set out in Schedule 21, to the recommendation I, as Trial Judge, made to the Secretary of State, and to paragraph 8 of Schedule 22 to the 2003 Act. Paragraph 8 provides that in dealing with a reference under paragraph 6 the court may not make an order under section 269(2) specifying a minimum term which in the opinion of the court is greater than that which under the practice followed by the Secretary of State before December 2002 the Secretary of State would have been likely to notify.

In accordance with these factors I have concluded that the appropriate starting point in determining the minimum term is 30 years. This is because this was a murder done for gain in the course of a burglary. The provisions of paragraphs 5(1)(b) and 5(2)(c) of Schedule 21 to the 2003 Act thus apply. The aggravating factors I take into account are (see paragraph 10(b) to Schedule 21) that the deceased, an 84 year old woman, was particularly vulnerable because of age. The mitigating factors that I take into account are that, as stated in my report to the Secretary of State, the jury probably convicted on the basis of an intent to cause grievous bodily harm rather than to kill, and this was not a pre-meditated killing: see paragraph 11(a) and (b) of Schedule 21 to the 2003 Act. I also take into account the fact that Tina Trevis was convicted following a trial, and that she expressed no remorse either after arrest or during the course of the trial.

Since the transitional regime set out in Schedule 22 to the 2003 Act applies to this case I observe that these mitigating and aggravating factors are also listed in the letter sent by Lord Bingham CJ on 10 February 1997 to Judges who had to make recommendations as to minimum terms. In Sullivan [2004] EWCA Crim 1762 Lord Woolf CJ stated that the 14 year period Lord Bingham identified as the norm was intended to cover more serious murders, i.e. intentional and pre-meditated murders and not those in which there was an absence of an intention to kill or lack of pre-meditation. The Practice Statement issued by Lord Woolf CJ on 27 July 2000, [2000] 4 All ER 831, maintained the 14 year period in respect of adults. Guidance given about the operation of the transitional provisions of the 2003 Act states that in the majority of cases the Secretary of State set minimum terms in line with Lord Bingham’s letter of 10 February 1997 and Lord Woolf’s practice statement of 27 July 2000. The only area where the Secretary of State tended to differ was in relation to the gravest murders involving multiple or serial murder where there are aggravating circumstances and no compelling mitigating factors: see Sullivan paragraph 38. This is not such a case. Under the practice followed by the Secretary of State before December 2002, I have concluded that in this case he would have set a minimum term in line with the recommendation made by the Trial Judge.

Taking account of all these factors I have concluded that, notwithstanding the mitigating factors I have referred to, the fact that the murder was of a vulnerable old lady in her own home and done for gain during a burglary justified my recommendation of a 16 year period and that the Secretary of State would have set a minimum term in line with this. I therefore confirm that this is to be the period under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The provisions of section 28(5) to (8) of the Crime Sentences Act 1997 (The Release Provisions) are to apply to Tina Marie Trevis as soon as she has served 16 years.

This means that Tina Trevis’s case will not be considered by the Parole Board until she has served at least 16 years in custody. After that time the Parole Board will be entitled to consider her release. When it is satisfied that she need no longer be confined in custody for the protection of the public it will be able to direct her release. Unless it is so satisfied she will remain in custody. If she is released it will be on terms that she is subject to a licence for the rest of her life and liable to be recalled to prison at any time if her licence is revoked.