further aggravating factor is your use of two weapons, a brick and a knife, which you took to the scene. in addressing the on the application of schedule 21 i m urged to find that not only is paragraph three not engage but neither is paragraph four and he argues that the knife that you carried was not one which was taken to the scene in the technical sense intended to be conveyed by paragraph four but i reject the submission and i am sure that you took a knife with you to the building and that you intended when you were there to commit an offence of sexual assault and or have the knife available as a weapon, it is not disputed that you used the weapon in committing the murder of nikki allan. paragraph counter is therefore engaged and this finding is overtaken by my earlier conclusion that this is a murder of particular seriousness but the fact that a knife was taken, even a penknife, and it was used, represents a significant aggravating factor which i must take into account.
so minimum term well in excess of 20 years would have been imposed 2010. lord bingham identified the killing of a child, evidence of sexual mistreatment before the killing and the use of a weapon or less factors, and all three were present in your case. all as factors. these factors would have increased the term substantially and increased the term substantially and in myjudgment to appoint at or beyond 20 years a point. the court would have to reflect on the further aggravating factors i have mentioned elsewhere and there were in reality no mitigating factors. although mr pitter mentioned your use at the time of your events, i reject that because you were 25. evenis reject that because you were 25. even is as he submits i must take
your offending was so serious that a minimum term of no less than 29 years would have been imposed and any term at leicester and this would not have effective the recommendation of the trialjudge or the decision of the home secretary at the time and i have given serious consideration that the factors would have led to a time of 30 years or more but taking into consideration the observations of lord beaumont that the imposition of such a term would be very rare indeed i have concluded that i cannot be sure that a term in excess of 30 years would have been imposed lord bingham. accordingly i am satisfied that the minimum term of imprisonment which would have been ordered that you serve before release on licence is 29 years. that being lower than the minimum term i have determined under the contemporary regime, i set the
average or normal or unexceptional murder before taking in mitigating factors into account, and the letter went on to list the various factors which would likely call for a sentence mitigating the normal penalty and those factors included some normality, or mental abnormality, saab normality. for example a sudden response to family pressure or prolonged stress. lord bingham list of the following factors is likely to call for a sentence more severe than the norm, they included the killing of a child, ora they included the killing of a child, or a very old or otherwise vulnerable children, evidence of sadism or gratuitous violence, degradation before the killing, and the use of firearms or other dangerous weapons, whether carried
a result of the minimum term which i may impose you may die in prison is not it seems to be a factor which i shall take into account. therefore taking all of these factors into account, the minimum term which i would have ordered under schedule 21 is one of not less than 37 years. i move on to stage two of my assessment. this is the home secretary s determination and i must now determine what the decision of the home secretary would have been before 2002 by applying the applicable guidance at the time. on the 10th of february 1997 a letter was sent by lord bingham to all judges who made recommendations as to the appropriate term in murder cases and that letter advocated 1a years as the normal penalty for the